activistpost--2020-09-04--University Partners With Maker of “Pandemic Drones” to Install COVID Detection and Social Distancing

University Partners With Maker of “Pandemic Drones” to Install COVID Detection and Social Distancing System

As American COVID concerns continue to increase , at least one school district has required students and staff to wear Bluetooth-enabled armbands to monitor temperatures .
Some colleges are requiring students to install contact tracing apps on their devices .
At least one university is paying scientists to collecting and analyzing human waste for contact tracing .
And at least one university has installed technology to scan , monitor , and alert students when they aren ’ t social distancing .
Alabama State University has contracted with Draganfly , a company also known for using their technology to develop “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see in the following video , the company is also currently working with the University of South Australia and has plans for a “ global early warning system.
” Los Angeles , CA.
, Sept. 01 , 2020 ( GLOBE NEWSWIRE ) — Draganfly Inc. ( OTCQB : DFLYF ) ( CSE : DFLY ) ( FSE : 3U8 ) ( “ Draganfly ” or the “ Company ” ) , an award-winning , industry-leading manufacturer and systems developer is pleased to announce that Alabama State University ( “ ASU ” ) has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thermal Temperature Assessment Stations , Vital Signs Assessment Stations and Social Distancing awareness technologies to be used campus-wide to detect potential symptoms of COVID-19 .
Draganfly ’ s Vital Intelligence Smart Thermal Assessment Station and Vital Sign Screening technology provides a quick , non-invasive ( contactless ) and anonymous measurement of an elevated body temperature and , with voluntary consent , heart rate , respiratory rate and O2 saturation , all from a camera that takes seconds to capture .
The Social Distancing Awareness unit ensures compliance with social distancing guidelines .
Alabama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ install 5 Smart Thermal and Vital Sign Assessment units and 5 Social Distancing Awareness units to be stationed across the campus and accessible by its staff , faculty and 4,000-plus students .
Individuals who appear to have an elevated temperature could then be screened by a medical professional to confirm the presence of fever .
The Smart Thermal Temperature Assessment Stations , Vital Sign Assessment Stations and Social Distancing units are North American made and owned .
The platform does not register any personal data of the individual being screened .
Data provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of individuals screened , number of elevated temperatures and potential cases with elevated vital signs detected and the time it took for each screening .
The data will also provide real-time data on the overall health of Alabama State University ’ s community in relation to scans .
“ As we enter into a new school year during this pandemic , the safety of our students , faculty and staff is of utmost importance , ” said Dr. Quinton T. Ross Jr. , President , Alabama State University .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we prepared for the reopening of the campus .
The Smart Thermal Temperature Screening Stations are an added layer of protocols that assist us in identifying and mitigating the risk of the spread of COVID-19 .
Draganfly has provided us with the approved requirements needed to do this effectively .
The stations are an essential tool in screening large groups of people in a short period of time.
” “ Re-opening our schools is imperative , ” said Sen. Bobby Singleton ( D- Greensboro ) .
“ We want to implement a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enable this to happen .
With all the fear , uncertainty and loss that COVID-19 has caused , we need to change the landscape of public education in Alabama .
I am confident that the Draganfly Vital intelligence platform , which fits with the Safely Opening Schools ( SOS ) Program , will help to do just that.
” “ We are excited that Alabama State University has chosen Draganfly to implement our Vital Intelligence technology on their campus , ” said Cameron Chell , CEO of Draganfly .
“ A screening protocol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important preventative measure during this pandemic .
In addition , providing informative data in relation to the number of faculty , staff and students tested can help to assess the overall health of their facility and help to keep their school safe and open.
” CNN also offered some rather Orwellian quotes from University president Quinton Ross Jr. : “ Here at Alabama State University it ’ s really embracing a culture shift , ” Ross said , regarding the mandatory mask mandate , and testing of all students , faculty and staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I consider myself ‘ Big Brother ’ because I do want to know who is his positive or negative on this campus , ” Ross said , “ because that drives the decisions that we make on a daily basis , and we want to make sure that our campus is safe.
” Wireless , “ smart ” and Internet of Things ( IoT ) technology is obviously designed to collect data and conduct surveillance ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) which some find creepy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned that it ’ s extremely vulnerable to data leakage and to hackers who additionally can collect personal data , conduct surveillance and even set technology on fire .
All Bluetooth , “ Smart ” and WiFi technology also emits harmful electromagnetic radiation which can make people AND animals sick ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ) , disrupt the blood-brain barrier ( see 1 , 2 ) , increase cancer risk ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to illnesses like , for example , the coronavirus .
As if that in itself wasn ’ t worrisome enough… Activist Post reports regularly about invasive and unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites : Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

By B.N. Frank
As American COVID concerns continue to increase, at least one school district has required students and staff to wear Bluetooth-enabled armbands to monitor temperatures. Some colleges are requiring students to install contact tracing apps on their devices. At least one university is paying scientists to collecting and analyzing human waste for contact tracing.
And at least one university has installed technology to scan, monitor, and alert students when they aren’t social distancing. Alabama State University has contracted with Draganfly, a company also known for using their technology to develop “pandemic drones.”
As you’ll see in the following video, the company is also currently working with the University of South Australia and has plans for a “global early warning system.”
From Draganfly’s press release:
Vital Intelligence’s Smart Thermal and Vital Sign Screening Detects Potential Symptoms of COVID-19 Los Angeles, CA., Sept. 01, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Draganfly Inc. (OTCQB: DFLYF) (CSE: DFLY) (FSE: 3U8) (“Draganfly” or the “Company”), an award-winning, industry-leading manufacturer and systems developer is pleased to announce that Alabama State University (“ASU”) has selected Draganfly’s Vital Intelligence Smart Thermal Temperature Assessment Stations, Vital Signs Assessment Stations and Social Distancing awareness technologies to be used campus-wide to detect potential symptoms of COVID-19. Draganfly’s Vital Intelligence Smart Thermal Assessment Station and Vital Sign Screening technology provides a quick, non-invasive (contactless) and anonymous measurement of an elevated body temperature and, with voluntary consent, heart rate, respiratory rate and O2 saturation, all from a camera that takes seconds to capture. The Social Distancing Awareness unit ensures compliance with social distancing guidelines. Alabama State University has agreed to purchase and install 5 Smart Thermal and Vital Sign Assessment units and 5 Social Distancing Awareness units to be stationed across the campus and accessible by its staff, faculty and 4,000-plus students. Individuals who appear to have an elevated temperature could then be screened by a medical professional to confirm the presence of fever. The Smart Thermal Temperature Assessment Stations, Vital Sign Assessment Stations and Social Distancing units are North American made and owned. The platform does not register any personal data of the individual being screened. Data provided back to Alabama State University will include the number of individuals screened, number of elevated temperatures and potential cases with elevated vital signs detected and the time it took for each screening. The data will also provide real-time data on the overall health of Alabama State University’s community in relation to scans. “As we enter into a new school year during this pandemic, the safety of our students, faculty and staff is of utmost importance,” said Dr. Quinton T. Ross Jr., President, Alabama State University. “We have implemented a number of safety measures as we prepared for the reopening of the campus. The Smart Thermal Temperature Screening Stations are an added layer of protocols that assist us in identifying and mitigating the risk of the spread of COVID-19. Draganfly has provided us with the approved requirements needed to do this effectively. The stations are an essential tool in screening large groups of people in a short period of time.” “Re-opening our schools is imperative,” said Sen. Bobby Singleton (D- Greensboro). “We want to implement a safe, accurate and measurable protocol to enable this to happen. With all the fear, uncertainty and loss that COVID-19 has caused, we need to change the landscape of public education in Alabama. I am confident that the Draganfly Vital intelligence platform, which fits with the Safely Opening Schools (SOS) Program, will help to do just that.” “We are excited that Alabama State University has chosen Draganfly to implement our Vital Intelligence technology on their campus,” said Cameron Chell, CEO of Draganfly. “A screening protocol before entering their on-campus facilities is an important preventative measure during this pandemic. In addition, providing informative data in relation to the number of faculty, staff and students tested can help to assess the overall health of their facility and help to keep their school safe and open.”
.@ASUHornetNation selects Draganfly to provide the Safe School Solution™ utilizing its Smart Thermal and Vital Sign Screening which detects potential symptoms of #COVID19. https://t.co/PAWSSdnZSH pic.twitter.com/hgjM9xTeLg — Draganfly Inc. (@DraganflyInc) September 1, 2020
As recounted by CNN:
Each thermal scanner costs about $20,000, and each social distancing rig costs about $10,000, according to a representative for Draganfly, the company that makes these stations. The stations at ASU are paid for through money received from the CARES Act.
CNN also offered some rather Orwellian quotes from University president Quinton Ross Jr.:
“Here at Alabama State University it’s really embracing a culture shift,” Ross said, regarding the mandatory mask mandate, and testing of all students, faculty and staff before they returned to campus. […] “I consider myself ‘Big Brother’ because I do want to know who is his positive or negative on this campus,” Ross said, “because that drives the decisions that we make on a daily basis, and we want to make sure that our campus is safe.”
Wireless, “smart” and Internet of Things (IoT) technology is obviously designed to collect data and conduct surveillance (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) which some find creepy enough. Unfortunately, experts have also warned that it’s extremely vulnerable to data leakage and to hackers who additionally can collect personal data, conduct surveillance and even set technology on fire.
All Bluetooth, “Smart” and WiFi technology also emits harmful electromagnetic radiation which can make people AND animals sick (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), disrupt the blood-brain barrier (see 1, 2), increase cancer risk (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) AND reduce immunity to illnesses like, for example, the coronavirus. As if that in itself wasn’t worrisome enough…
Activist Post reports regularly about invasive and unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites:
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-04--The Economy Continues To Unravel Despite All Stimulus Measures

Since the pandemic lockdowns were first implemented in the US I have been more concerned with the government and central bank response than the virus itself .
As I have noted in past articles , the pandemic restrictions and subsequent economic and social crisis events they help to create will cause far more deaths than Covid-19 ever will .
Not only that , but the actions of the Federal Reserve continue to con the American public into believing that there is some kind of “ plan ” to stop the crash that THEY engineered .
The only agenda of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long term ; they have no intention of actually preventing any disaster .
This is evidenced in comments by voting members of the Fed , including Neel Kashkari who recently argued for the enforcement of hard lockdowns for at least six weeks in the US , all because the US savings rate was going up .
Meaning , because Americans are saving more in order to protect themselves from economic fallout , Kashkari thinks we should be punished with an economic shutdown that would force us to spend whatever we have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how that works ?
Fed members and government officials demand hard lockdowns , depleting public savings and destroying small businesses .
Then , the public has to beg the Fed and the government for more and more stimulus measures so that they can survive .
The people and the system become dependent on a single point of support – fiat money creation and welfare .
Yet , the evidence suggests that this strategy is failing to do much of anything except stall the inevitable for a very short time .
If the goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic as much as possible , then the strategy should be to keep the economy as open as possible and let the virus run its course .
By initiating lockdowns , all we are doing is extending the economic damage over the span of years instead of months .
We can deal with the comparatively minimal deaths associated with the virus ; we can not handle the disaster that is about to befall the financial system .
The small business sector appears to be the most fragile element of the economy right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to shore up small businesses failed miserably , with data showing only 13 % to 19 % of applicants getting a loan of any kind .
Over 64 % of small businesses that received a loan are also worried about being approved for loan forgiveness .
In other words , of the few small business owners that got a PPP loan more than half do not have the ability to pay the loan back if they end up not qualifying for exemption .
This problem does not seem to be affecting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are enjoying incredible cash infusions from the Fed through overnight loans as well as Fed stimulus propping up stock markets ( at least for now ) .
Tech companies in particular are enjoying a rush of investment as the assumption in the daytrading world is that the central bank will not allow these companies to fail .
Maybe they are right , but stock markets today DO NOT reflect the health of our system in any way .
Stock tickers are a placebo , a Pavlovian trigger for the public , a tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is improving merely because share values are going up .
This is not the case .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income Small businesses in the US account for around 50 % of all employment and job creation .
They are a vital part of the economy .
Yet , government and central bank measures seem to have left them out in the cold to die .
To be sure , the $ 600 weekly unemployment enhancement created through the CARES Act passed in March did boost consumer spending , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TVs , cellphones , etc .
Spending on services declined though , which is where the majority of small businesses make their money .
And , considering the fact that most durable goods are manufactured overseas , this means that the majority of stimulus dollars that went to consumers did not go into the US economy , but foreign exporters like China .
Now , the unemployment enhancement has ended and its return is in question .
It will be interesting to see if the boost to purchases of goods will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Consumer spending rose in July by 1.9 % , but this was already a weak print compared to the increases during the previous two months .
Unemployment numbers have declined due to soft reopenings in numerous states , and at the very least some part-time jobs appear to be returning , but nowhere near the level needed to erase the millions of jobs lost since February after the initial lockdowns began .
If you count U-6 measurements and unemployed people who have been removed from the rolls for being jobless for too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closer to 30 % of working age Americans .
This is essentially Great Depression levels of joblessness .
US GDP has continued to decline by 32 % according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( despite statistical rigging by the Fed and government agencies ) , and while it ’ s possible that stimulus slowed the effects of GDP loss , there is no indication what the trillions of dollars created by the Fed have actually bought other than a few months of time and a massive bubble in the stock market .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions for any length of time , let alone almost two more months .
And , if you want to know what it means when elites in government and central banking call for a “ hard lockdowns ” , just look at Level 4 restrictions in places like Australia and New Zealand , where only one person can leave home at any given time , can only travel 3 miles from home and only for food and supplies , and anyone caught not wearing a mask is subject to arrest or a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Australia was arrested because of a Facebook post calling for protests over the lockdown restrictions .
She later had to take the post down and offered an apology , saying she did not know it was illegal to post such statements on social media : Yeah , this kind of Orwellian response will do wonders for any economic recovery , and this is what Kashkari is calling for in the US .
It ’ s almost as if the Fed and certain politicians WANT a financial collapse in America… The REAL solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If the goal is truly to protect as many American lives as possible for the “ greater good ” , then the pandemic response must stop .
Luckily , it seems that more and more people are beginning to see through the facade and are rejecting the restrictions .
Even in Europe and Australia there have been some signs of protest and rebellion .
The problem is that , at least in terms of the economy , it may be too late .
We have to consider the fact that once a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like small businesses ) takes a massive hit like the one they have suffered over the past several months , many such businesses and jobs will simply not come back .
There are many reasons for this , but primarily it ’ s a matter of debt .
The average small business owner carries almost $ 200,000 in debt for 3-5 years before he reaches profitability or breaks even .
This is assuming that there are no major economic catastrophes in that time .
With the pandemic , the riots , the restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take on much more debt with little guarantee of recovery in the next few years let alone the next few months .
Chapter 11 business bankruptcies in the US rose over 26 % in the first half of 2020 alone .
Even if lockdown restrictions were completely eradicated tomorrow , a large number of businesses would go bankrupt anyway .
The “ Retail Apocalypse ” has been growing over the past decade , LONG before the coronavirus was on issue .
Thousands of businesses shut down last year and tens of thousands more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The virus and lockdowns simply accelerated the existing decline .
This is why large banks are cutting off loans to business owners and consumers right now ; they know exactly where all this is headed .
Banks act as middlemen for the PPP loans financed by the Fed , yet those loans are not getting to most businesses .
Banks have also cut credit card lending in the past few months , and general lending has crashed .
All of this despite low interest rates for banks receiving stimulus injections from the Fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going ?
They are keeping it for themselves , buying up hard assets as well as propping up the stock market .
As noted above , the elites have NO INTENTION of saving the economy , only themselves .
If the stimulus is not getting to the main-street economy then the only purpose it serves is to give the public a false sense of comfort .
The people who gain the most from the ongoing pandemic chaos are establishment elites that want severe restrictions on personal liberty .
Not to mention , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the financial crisis that was already brewing due to central bank mismanagement of stimulus , inflation and interest rates .
The bottom line is , the banks do not want the crisis to end .
Why would they ?
The longer the panic continues , the more they benefit .
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda , subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch .
Learn more about it HERE .
After 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Federal Reserve , it ’ s no secret that inflation is primed to soar .
If your IRA or 401 ( k ) is exposed to this threat , it ’ s critical to act now !
That ’ s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA .
Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group .
It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401 ( k ) into gold .
Click here to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can contact Brandon Smith at : [ email protected ] Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Brandon Smith
Since the pandemic lockdowns were first implemented in the US I have been more concerned with the government and central bank response than the virus itself. As I have noted in past articles, the pandemic restrictions and subsequent economic and social crisis events they help to create will cause far more deaths than Covid-19 ever will. Not only that, but the actions of the Federal Reserve continue to con the American public into believing that there is some kind of “plan” to stop the crash that THEY engineered.
The only agenda of the Fed is to increase the pain in the long term; they have no intention of actually preventing any disaster.
This is evidenced in comments by voting members of the Fed, including Neel Kashkari who recently argued for the enforcement of hard lockdowns for at least six weeks in the US, all because the US savings rate was going up. Meaning, because Americans are saving more in order to protect themselves from economic fallout, Kashkari thinks we should be punished with an economic shutdown that would force us to spend whatever we have been able to save.
Do you see how that works?
Fed members and government officials demand hard lockdowns, depleting public savings and destroying small businesses. Then, the public has to beg the Fed and the government for more and more stimulus measures so that they can survive. The people and the system become dependent on a single point of support – fiat money creation and welfare. Yet, the evidence suggests that this strategy is failing to do much of anything except stall the inevitable for a very short time.
If the goal was really to reduce the pain of the pandemic as much as possible, then the strategy should be to keep the economy as open as possible and let the virus run its course. By initiating lockdowns, all we are doing is extending the economic damage over the span of years instead of months. We can deal with the comparatively minimal deaths associated with the virus; we cannot handle the disaster that is about to befall the financial system.
The small business sector appears to be the most fragile element of the economy right now. The PPP loans that were supposed to shore up small businesses failed miserably, with data showing only 13% to 19% of applicants getting a loan of any kind. Over 64% of small businesses that received a loan are also worried about being approved for loan forgiveness. In other words, of the few small business owners that got a PPP loan more than half do not have the ability to pay the loan back if they end up not qualifying for exemption.
This problem does not seem to be affecting the corporate sector, however. International companies are enjoying incredible cash infusions from the Fed through overnight loans as well as Fed stimulus propping up stock markets (at least for now). Tech companies in particular are enjoying a rush of investment as the assumption in the daytrading world is that the central bank will not allow these companies to fail.
Maybe they are right, but stock markets today DO NOT reflect the health of our system in any way. Stock tickers are a placebo, a Pavlovian trigger for the public, a tool to make people believe that the situation is improving merely because share values are going up. This is not the case.
Small businesses in the US account for around 50% of all employment and job creation. They are a vital part of the economy. Yet, government and central bank measures seem to have left them out in the cold to die.
To be sure, the $600 weekly unemployment enhancement created through the CARES Act passed in March did boost consumer spending, primarily on durable goods such as computers, TVs, cellphones, etc. Spending on services declined though, which is where the majority of small businesses make their money. And, considering the fact that most durable goods are manufactured overseas, this means that the majority of stimulus dollars that went to consumers did not go into the US economy, but foreign exporters like China.
Now, the unemployment enhancement has ended and its return is in question. It will be interesting to see if the boost to purchases of goods will continue without that extra $600 weekly stimulus. Consumer spending rose in July by 1.9%, but this was already a weak print compared to the increases during the previous two months.
Unemployment numbers have declined due to soft reopenings in numerous states, and at the very least some part-time jobs appear to be returning, but nowhere near the level needed to erase the millions of jobs lost since February after the initial lockdowns began. If you count U-6 measurements and unemployed people who have been removed from the rolls for being jobless for too long, the REAL unemployment rate is closer to 30% of working age Americans. This is essentially Great Depression levels of joblessness.
US GDP has continued to decline by 32% according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (despite statistical rigging by the Fed and government agencies), and while it’s possible that stimulus slowed the effects of GDP loss, there is no indication what the trillions of dollars created by the Fed have actually bought other than a few months of time and a massive bubble in the stock market.
The economy cannot survive extreme lockdown conditions for any length of time, let alone almost two more months. And, if you want to know what it means when elites in government and central banking call for a “hard lockdowns”, just look at Level 4 restrictions in places like Australia and New Zealand, where only one person can leave home at any given time, can only travel 3 miles from home and only for food and supplies, and anyone caught not wearing a mask is subject to arrest or a $10,000 fine.
This mother in Melbourne, Australia was arrested because of a Facebook post calling for protests over the lockdown restrictions. She later had to take the post down and offered an apology, saying she did not know it was illegal to post such statements on social media:
Yeah, this kind of Orwellian response will do wonders for any economic recovery, and this is what Kashkari is calling for in the US. It’s almost as if the Fed and certain politicians WANT a financial collapse in America…
The REAL solution is to stop the lockdown restrictions altogether. If the goal is truly to protect as many American lives as possible for the “greater good”, then the pandemic response must stop. Luckily, it seems that more and more people are beginning to see through the facade and are rejecting the restrictions. Even in Europe and Australia there have been some signs of protest and rebellion. The problem is that, at least in terms of the economy, it may be too late.
We have to consider the fact that once a large portion of the business sector (like small businesses) takes a massive hit like the one they have suffered over the past several months, many such businesses and jobs will simply not come back. There are many reasons for this, but primarily it’s a matter of debt. The average small business owner carries almost $200,000 in debt for 3-5 years before he reaches profitability or breaks even. This is assuming that there are no major economic catastrophes in that time.
With the pandemic, the riots, the restrictions, etc., businesses will have to take on much more debt with little guarantee of recovery in the next few years let alone the next few months. Chapter 11 business bankruptcies in the US rose over 26% in the first half of 2020 alone.
Even if lockdown restrictions were completely eradicated tomorrow, a large number of businesses would go bankrupt anyway. The “Retail Apocalypse” has been growing over the past decade, LONG before the coronavirus was on issue. Thousands of businesses shut down last year and tens of thousands more are slated to close this year. The virus and lockdowns simply accelerated the existing decline.
This is why large banks are cutting off loans to business owners and consumers right now; they know exactly where all this is headed.
Banks act as middlemen for the PPP loans financed by the Fed, yet those loans are not getting to most businesses. Banks have also cut credit card lending in the past few months, and general lending has crashed. All of this despite low interest rates for banks receiving stimulus injections from the Fed. Where is all of the money going? They are keeping it for themselves, buying up hard assets as well as propping up the stock market. As noted above, the elites have NO INTENTION of saving the economy, only themselves.
If the stimulus is not getting to the main-street economy then the only purpose it serves is to give the public a false sense of comfort. The people who gain the most from the ongoing pandemic chaos are establishment elites that want severe restrictions on personal liberty. Not to mention, the virus and lockdowns offer a convenient scapegoat for the financial crisis that was already brewing due to central bank mismanagement of stimulus, inflation and interest rates. The bottom line is, the banks do not want the crisis to end. Why would they? The longer the panic continues, the more they benefit.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-04--NYC Restaurants Sue Cuomo For $2BN For Refusing To Allow Return Of Indoor Dining

After slamming President Trump for acting “ like a king ” , NY Gov Andrew Cuomo has mercifully allowed more businesses in the Empire State to finally reopen , even though COVID-19 cases haven ’ t seen anything approaching the kind of resurgences that officials have warned about .
Unlike pretty much every other state at this point ( even neighboring New Jersey finally caved ) , New York hasn ’ t allowed the return of indoor dining .
The issue is prompting an outpouring of rage directed at Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio , who have allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while crushing the city ’ s small businesses .
Adding insult to injury , de Blasio caved to the teachers union and spared more than 20,000 city employees who had been set for layoffs .
Gyms finally reopened in NYC Wednesday after city officials forced businesses to get cleared by the health department .
Gyms around the state were allowed to reopen Aug. 24 , but the delay until Sept. 2 was unique to New York City .
The map above is lightly misleading : Most of NY state allows limited indoor dining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state that hasn ’ t authorized any form of indoor dining , despite the fact that it has consistently reported positivity rates below 1 % for weeks .
On Thursday , with the country focused on vaccine news , Cuomo announced that the state would allow casinos and malls to reopen on a limited capacity on Sept. 9 .
But restaurants in NYC would remain closed for the foreseeable future .
While de Blasio pushes for Cuomo and him to cooperatively develop a timeline for the return of indoor dining in NYC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taunt , again reminding NYC leaders that “ they have no legal authority to make that decision ” on fully reopening restaurants .
While he suggested that he ’ s “ amenable ” to reopening restaurants , he insisted that the city needs to have a well-thought-out plan that must be approved by the governor .
After all , Cuomo is the one who has the final say .
“ … We have major problems in New York City with the compliance on the bars .
I have beseeched New York City to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement , ” Cuomo said during a telephonic briefing with reporters .
“ We put together a task force to do the enforcement on Long Island and New York City … We have taken state police resources from many places to do that enforcement.
” “ My opinion is restaurants should open .
The question is how ?
” Cuomo said Thursday .
See : 177 Different Ways to Generate Extra Income He then went on to promise that a “ timetable ” for reopening would be hashed out by the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ good news or bad news.
” “ I think it ’ s our responsibility to give them as clear an answer in the month of September as possible , of where we are going , ” the mayor said Wednesday .
“ If there can be a timeline , if there can be a set of standards for reopening , we need to decide that in the next few weeks and announce it , whether it is good news or bad news.
” But restaurant owners , facing the destruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A frustrated group of restaurant owners slapped Cuomo with a class action lawsuit urging a judge to overrule the governor and allow NYC restaurants to start reopening their dining rooms .
The suit is seeking $ 2 billion in damages and alleges that the state is violating the constitutional rights of the owners of more than 150,000 New York City restaurants , many of which have already closed permanently .
One study published Thursday claims that 60 % of NYC restaurants will likely be forced to close if indoor dining doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city restaurants have signed on .
One restaurant , Il Bacco in Queens , joined the suit to argue that customers can simply walk a few blocks away into Nassau County if they want to eat indoors .
NY State has reported nearly 470k cases , roughly half of those were confirmed in NYC .
We imagine the state ’ s liberal judges will side with the government .
But as time goes on , more people are starting to doubt that the indoor dining ban is a safety issue .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to politically hamstring his most hated Democratic rival , de Blasio ?
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
After slamming President Trump for acting “like a king”, NY Gov Andrew Cuomo has mercifully allowed more businesses in the Empire State to finally reopen, even though COVID-19 cases haven’t seen anything approaching the kind of resurgences that officials have warned about.
Unlike pretty much every other state at this point (even neighboring New Jersey finally caved), New York hasn’t allowed the return of indoor dining. The issue is prompting an outpouring of rage directed at Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, who have allowed protesters to gather night after night, while crushing the city’s small businesses. Adding insult to injury, de Blasio caved to the teachers union and spared more than 20,000 city employees who had been set for layoffs.
Gyms finally reopened in NYC Wednesday after city officials forced businesses to get cleared by the health department. Gyms around the state were allowed to reopen Aug. 24, but the delay until Sept. 2 was unique to New York City.
The map above is lightly misleading: Most of NY state allows limited indoor dining. NYC is the only city in the state that hasn’t authorized any form of indoor dining, despite the fact that it has consistently reported positivity rates below 1% for weeks.
On Thursday, with the country focused on vaccine news, Cuomo announced that the state would allow casinos and malls to reopen on a limited capacity on Sept. 9. But restaurants in NYC would remain closed for the foreseeable future.
While de Blasio pushes for Cuomo and him to cooperatively develop a timeline for the return of indoor dining in NYC, Cuomo responded with a thinly veiled taunt, again reminding NYC leaders that “they have no legal authority to make that decision” on fully reopening restaurants. While he suggested that he’s “amenable” to reopening restaurants, he insisted that the city needs to have a well-thought-out plan that must be approved by the governor.
After all, Cuomo is the one who has the final say.
“… We have major problems in New York City with the compliance on the bars. I have beseeched New York City to do a better job on compliance and enforcement,” Cuomo said during a telephonic briefing with reporters. “We put together a task force to do the enforcement on Long Island and New York City … We have taken state police resources from many places to do that enforcement.” “My opinion is restaurants should open. The question is how?” Cuomo said Thursday.
He then went on to promise that a “timetable” for reopening would be hashed out by the end of the month, though the answer might be “good news or bad news.”
“I think it’s our responsibility to give them as clear an answer in the month of September as possible, of where we are going,” the mayor said Wednesday. “If there can be a timeline, if there can be a set of standards for reopening, we need to decide that in the next few weeks and announce it, whether it is good news or bad news.”
But restaurant owners, facing the destruction of their livelihood, are refusing to wait. A frustrated group of restaurant owners slapped Cuomo with a class action lawsuit urging a judge to overrule the governor and allow NYC restaurants to start reopening their dining rooms.
The suit is seeking $2 billion in damages and alleges that the state is violating the constitutional rights of the owners of more than 150,000 New York City restaurants, many of which have already closed permanently. One study published Thursday claims that 60% of NYC restaurants will likely be forced to close if indoor dining doesn’t return soon. More than 350 city restaurants have signed on.
One restaurant, Il Bacco in Queens, joined the suit to argue that customers can simply walk a few blocks away into Nassau County if they want to eat indoors.
NY State has reported nearly 470k cases, roughly half of those were confirmed in NYC.
We imagine the state’s liberal judges will side with the government. But as time goes on, more people are starting to doubt that the indoor dining ban is a safety issue. Instead, might this be another attempt by Cuomo to politically hamstring his most hated Democratic rival, de Blasio?
Source: Zerohedge
Image: Pixabay
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-03--Technology Can’t Predict Crime, It Can Only Weaponize Proximity to Policing

In June 2020 , Santa Cruz , California became the first city in the United States to ban municipal use of predictive policing , a method of deploying law enforcement resources according to data-driven analytics that supposedly are able to predict perpetrators , victims , or locations of future crimes .
Especially interesting is that Santa Cruz was one of the first cities in the country to experiment with the technology when it piloted , and then adopted , a predictive policing program in 2011 .
That program used historic and current crime data to break down some areas of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot blocks in order to pinpoint locations that were likely to be the scene of future crimes .
However , after nine years , the city council voted unanimously to ban it over fears of how it perpetuated racial inequality .
Predictive policing is a self-fulfilling prophecy .
If police focus their efforts in one neighborhood and arrest dozens of people there during the span of a week , the data will reflect that area as a hotbed of criminal activity .
The system also considers only reported crime , which means that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called more often might see a higher likelihood of having predictive policing technology concentrate resources there .
This system is tailor-made to further victimize communities that are already overpoliced—namely , communities of color , unhoused individuals , and immigrants—by using the cloak of scientific legitimacy and the supposed unbiased nature of data .
Santa Cruz ’ s experiment , and eventual banning of the technology is a lesson to the rest of the country : technology is not a substitute for community engagement and holistic crime reduction measures .
The more police departments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus efforts and who to be suspicious of , the more harm those departments will cause to vulnerable communities .
That ’ s why police departments should be banned from using supposedly data-informed algorithms to inform which communities , and even which people , should receive the lion ’ s share of policing and criminalization .
The Santa Cruz ordinance banning predictive policing defines the technology as “ means software that is used to predict information or trends about crime or criminality in the past or future , including but not limited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( s ) likely to commit a crime , the identity of any person ( s ) likely to commit crime , the locations or frequency of crime , or the person ( s ) impacted by predicted crime.
” Predictive policing analyzes a massive amount of information from historical crimes including the time of day , season of the year , weather patterns , types of victims , and types of location in order to infer when and in which locations crime is likely to occur .
For instance , if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleyways on Thursdays , the algorithm might tell a department they should dispatch officers to alleyways every Thursday .
Of course , then this means that police are predisposed to be suspicious of everyone who happens to be in that area at that time .
The technology attempts to function similarly while conducting the less prevalent “ person based ” predictive policing .
This takes the form of opaque rating systems that assign people a risk value based on a number of data streams including age , suspected gang affiliation , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a victim as well as an alleged perpetrator of a crime .
The accumulated total of this data could result in someone being placed on a “ hot list ” , as happened to over 1,000 people in Chicago who were placed on one such “ Strategic Subject List.
” As when specific locations are targeted , this technology can not actually predict crime—and in an attempt to do so , it may expose people to targeted police harassment or surveillance without any actual proof that a crime will be committed .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictive policing continues to expand despite its dubious foundations : it makes money .
Many companies have developed tools for data-driven policing ; some of the biggest arePredPol , HunchLab , CivicScape , and Palantir .
Academic institutions have also developed predictive policing technologies , such as Rutgers University ’ s RTM Diagnostics or Carnegie Mellon University ’ s CrimeScan , which is used in Pittsburgh .
Some departments have built such tools with private companies and academic institutions .
For example , in 2010 , the Memphis Police Department built its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Memphis Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice , using IBM SPSS predictive analytics .
As of summer 2020 , the technology is used in dozens of cities across the United States .
What Problems Does it Pose ?
One of the biggest flaws of predictive policing is the faulty data fed into the system .
These algorithms depend on data informing them of where criminal activity has happened to predict where future criminal activity will take place .
However , not all crime is recorded—some communities are more likely to report crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be reported than other crimes , and officers have discretion in deciding whether or not to make an arrest .
Predictive policing only accounts for crimes that are reported , and concentrates policing resources in those communities , which then makes it more likely that police may uncover other crimes .
This all creates a feedback loop that makes predictive policing a self-fulfilling prophecy .
As professor Suresh Venkatasubramanian put it : Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
This feedback loop will impact vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unhoused communities , and immigrants .
Police are already policing minority neighborhoods and arresting people for things that may have gone unnoticed or unreported in less heavily patrolled neighborhoods .
When this already skewed data is entered into a predictive algorithm , it will deploy more officers to the communities that are already overpoliced .
A recent deep dive into the predictive program used by the Pasco County Sheriff ’ s office illustrates the harms that getting stuck in an algorithmic loop can have on people .
After one 15-year-old was arrested for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the algorithm continuously dispatched police to harass him and his family .
Over the span of five months , police went to his home 21 times .
They showed up at his gym and his parent ’ s place of work .
The Tampa Bay Times revealed that since 2015 , the sheriff ’ s office has made more than 12,500 similar preemptive visits on people .
These visits often resulted in other , unrelated arrests that further victimized families and added to the likelihood that they would be visited and harassed again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a targeted teenager was issued a $ 2,500 fine when police sent to check in on her child saw chickens in the backyard .
In another incident , a father was arrested when police looked through the window of the house and saw a 17 year old smoking a cigarette .
These are the kinds of usually unreported crimes that occur in all neighborhoods , across all economic strata—but which only those marginalized people who live under near constant policing are penalized for .
As experts have pointed out , these algorithms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as gang databases , which have been the subject of public scrutiny due to their lack of transparency and overinclusion of Black and Latinx people .
In Los Angeles , for instance , if police notice a person wearing a sports jersey or having a brief conversation with someone on the street , it may be enough to include that person in the LAPD ’ s gang database .
Being included in a gang database often means being exposed to more police harassment and surveillance , and also can lead to consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as harsher sentences .
Inclusion in a gang database can impact whether a predictive algorithm identifies a person as being a potential threat to society or artificially projects a specific crime as gang-related .
In July 2020 , the California Attorney General barred police in the state from accessing any of LAPD ’ s entries into the California gang database after LAPD officers were caught falsifying data .
Unaccountable and overly broad gang databases are the type of flawed data flowing from police departments into predictive algorithms , and exactly why predictive policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial disparities in predictive policing , Human Rights Data Analysis Group ( HRDAG ) looked at Oakland Police Department ’ s recorded drug crimes .
It used a big data policing algorithm to determine where it would suggest that police look for future drug crimes .
Sure enough , HRDAG found that the data-driven model would have focused almost exclusively on low-income communities of color .
But public health data on drug users combined with U.S. Census data show that the distribution of drug users does not correlate with the program ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s predictions were rooted in bias rather than reality .
All of this is why a group of academic mathematicians recently declared a boycott against helping police create predictive policing tools .
They argued that their credentials and expertise create a convenient way to smuggle racist ideas about who will commit a crime based on where they live and who they know , into the mainstream through scientific legitimacy .
“ It is simply too easy , ” they write , “ to create a ’ scientific ’ veneer for racism.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transparency surrounding many predictive policing tools .
In many cases , it ’ s unclear how the algorithms are designed , what data is being used , and sometimes even what the system claims to predict .
Vendors have sought non-disclosure clauses or otherwise shrouded their products in secrecy , citing trade secrets or business confidentiality .
When data-driven policing tools are black boxes , it ’ s difficult to assess the risks of error rates , false positives , limits in programming capabilities , biased data , or even flaws in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For local departments , the prohibitive cost of using these predictive technologies can also be a detriment to the maintenance of civil society .
In Los Angeles , the LAPD paid $ 20 million over the course of nine years to use Palantir ’ s predictive technology alone .
That ’ s only one of many tools used by the LAPD in an attempt to predict the future .
Finally , predictive policing raises constitutional concerns .
Simply living or spending time in a neighborhood or with certain people may draw suspicion from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as potential perpetrators .
As legal scholar Andrew Guthrie Furgeson has written , there is tension between predictive policing and legal requirements that police possess reasonable suspicion to make a stop .
Moreover , predictive policing systems sometimes utilize information from social media to assess whether a person might be likely to engage in crime , which also raises free speech issues .
Technology can not predict crime , it can only weaponize a person ’ s proximity to police action .
An individual should not have their presumption of innocence eroded because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or neighbor commits a crime .
This just opens up members of already vulnerable populations to more police harassment , erodes trust between public safety measures and the community , and ultimately creates more danger .
This has already happened in Chicago , where the police surveil and monitor the social media of victims of crimes—because being a victim of a crime is one of the many factors Chicago ’ s predictive algorithm uses to determine if a person is at high risk of committing a crime themselves .
What Can Be Done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban suggests , cities are beginning to wise up to the dangers of predictive policing .
As with the growing movement to ban government use of face recognition and other biometric surveillance , we should also seek bans on predictive policing .
Across the country , from San Francisco to Boston , almost a dozen cities have banned police use of face recognition after recognizing its disproportionate impact on people of color , its tendency to falsely accuse people of crimes , its erosion of our presumption of innocence , and its ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing becomes even more widespread , cities should now take advantage of the opportunity to protect the well-being of their residents by passing ordinances that ban the use of this technology or prevent departments from acquiring it in the first place .
If your town has legislation like a Community Control Over Police Surveillance ( CCOPS ) ordinance , which requires elected officials to approve police purchase and use of surveillance equipment , the acquisition of predictive policing can be blocked while attempts to ban the technology are made .
The lessons from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply , even in the age of big data : people are innocent until proven guilty .
People should not be subject to harassment and surveillance because of their proximity to crime .
For-profit software companies with secretive proprietary algorithms should not be creating black box crystal balls exempt from public scrutiny and used without constraint by law enforcement .
It ’ s not too late to put the genie of predictive policing back in the bottle , and that is exactly what we should be urging local , state , and federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Matthew Guariglia
In June 2020, Santa Cruz, California became the first city in the United States to ban municipal use of predictive policing, a method of deploying law enforcement resources according to data-driven analytics that supposedly are able to predict perpetrators, victims, or locations of future crimes. Especially interesting is that Santa Cruz was one of the first cities in the country to experiment with the technology when it piloted, and then adopted, a predictive policing program in 2011. That program used historic and current crime data to break down some areas of the city into 500 foot by 500 foot blocks in order to pinpoint locations that were likely to be the scene of future crimes. However, after nine years, the city council voted unanimously to ban it over fears of how it perpetuated racial inequality.
Predictive policing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If police focus their efforts in one neighborhood and arrest dozens of people there during the span of a week, the data will reflect that area as a hotbed of criminal activity. The system also considers only reported crime, which means that neighborhoods and communities where the police are called more often might see a higher likelihood of having predictive policing technology concentrate resources there. This system is tailor-made to further victimize communities that are already overpoliced—namely, communities of color, unhoused individuals, and immigrants—by using the cloak of scientific legitimacy and the supposed unbiased nature of data.
Santa Cruz’s experiment, and eventual banning of the technology is a lesson to the rest of the country: technology is not a substitute for community engagement and holistic crime reduction measures. The more police departments rely on technology to dictate where to focus efforts and who to be suspicious of, the more harm those departments will cause to vulnerable communities. That’s why police departments should be banned from using supposedly data-informed algorithms to inform which communities, and even which people, should receive the lion’s share of policing and criminalization.
What Is Predictive Policing?
The Santa Cruz ordinance banning predictive policing defines the technology as “means software that is used to predict information or trends about crime or criminality in the past or future, including but not limited to the characteristics or profile of any person(s) likely to commit a crime, the identity of any person(s) likely to commit crime, the locations or frequency of crime, or the person(s) impacted by predicted crime.”
Predictive policing analyzes a massive amount of information from historical crimes including the time of day, season of the year, weather patterns, types of victims, and types of location in order to infer when and in which locations crime is likely to occur. For instance, if a number of crimes have been committed in alleyways on Thursdays, the algorithm might tell a department they should dispatch officers to alleyways every Thursday. Of course, then this means that police are predisposed to be suspicious of everyone who happens to be in that area at that time.
The technology attempts to function similarly while conducting the less prevalent “person based” predictive policing. This takes the form of opaque rating systems that assign people a risk value based on a number of data streams including age, suspected gang affiliation, and the number of times a person has been a victim as well as an alleged perpetrator of a crime. The accumulated total of this data could result in someone being placed on a “hot list”, as happened to over 1,000 people in Chicago who were placed on one such “Strategic Subject List.” As when specific locations are targeted, this technology cannot actually predict crime—and in an attempt to do so, it may expose people to targeted police harassment or surveillance without any actual proof that a crime will be committed.
There is a reason why the use of predictive policing continues to expand despite its dubious foundations: it makes money. Many companies have developed tools for data-driven policing; some of the biggest arePredPol, HunchLab, CivicScape, and Palantir. Academic institutions have also developed predictive policing technologies, such as Rutgers University’s RTM Diagnostics or Carnegie Mellon University’s CrimeScan, which is used in Pittsburgh. Some departments have built such tools with private companies and academic institutions. For example, in 2010, the Memphis Police Department built its own tool, in partnership with the University of Memphis Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, using IBM SPSS predictive analytics.
As of summer 2020, the technology is used in dozens of cities across the United States.
What Problems Does it Pose?
One of the biggest flaws of predictive policing is the faulty data fed into the system. These algorithms depend on data informing them of where criminal activity has happened to predict where future criminal activity will take place. However, not all crime is recorded—some communities are more likely to report crime than others, some crimes are less likely to be reported than other crimes, and officers have discretion in deciding whether or not to make an arrest. Predictive policing only accounts for crimes that are reported, and concentrates policing resources in those communities, which then makes it more likely that police may uncover other crimes. This all creates a feedback loop that makes predictive policing a self-fulfilling prophecy. As professor Suresh Venkatasubramanian put it:
If you build predictive policing, you are essentially sending police to certain neighborhoods based on what they told you—but that also means you’re not sending police to other neighborhoods because the system didn’t tell you to go there. If you assume that the data collection for your system is generated by police whom you sent to certain neighborhoods, then essentially your model is controlling the next round of data you get.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
This feedback loop will impact vulnerable communities, including communities of color, unhoused communities, and immigrants.
Police are already policing minority neighborhoods and arresting people for things that may have gone unnoticed or unreported in less heavily patrolled neighborhoods. When this already skewed data is entered into a predictive algorithm, it will deploy more officers to the communities that are already overpoliced.
A recent deep dive into the predictive program used by the Pasco County Sheriff’s office illustrates the harms that getting stuck in an algorithmic loop can have on people. After one 15-year-old was arrested for stealing bicycles out of a garage, the algorithm continuously dispatched police to harass him and his family. Over the span of five months, police went to his home 21 times. They showed up at his gym and his parent’s place of work. The Tampa Bay Times revealed that since 2015, the sheriff’s office has made more than 12,500 similar preemptive visits on people.
These visits often resulted in other, unrelated arrests that further victimized families and added to the likelihood that they would be visited and harassed again. In one incident, the mother of a targeted teenager was issued a $2,500 fine when police sent to check in on her child saw chickens in the backyard. In another incident, a father was arrested when police looked through the window of the house and saw a 17 year old smoking a cigarette. These are the kinds of usually unreported crimes that occur in all neighborhoods, across all economic strata—but which only those marginalized people who live under near constant policing are penalized for.
As experts have pointed out, these algorithms often draw from flawed and non-transparent sources such as gang databases, which have been the subject of public scrutiny due to their lack of transparency and overinclusion of Black and Latinx people. In Los Angeles, for instance, if police notice a person wearing a sports jersey or having a brief conversation with someone on the street, it may be enough to include that person in the LAPD’s gang database. Being included in a gang database often means being exposed to more police harassment and surveillance, and also can lead to consequences once in the legal system, such as harsher sentences. Inclusion in a gang database can impact whether a predictive algorithm identifies a person as being a potential threat to society or artificially projects a specific crime as gang-related. In July 2020, the California Attorney General barred police in the state from accessing any of LAPD’s entries into the California gang database after LAPD officers were caught falsifying data. Unaccountable and overly broad gang databases are the type of flawed data flowing from police departments into predictive algorithms, and exactly why predictive policing cannot be trusted.
To test racial disparities in predictive policing, Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) looked at Oakland Police Department’s recorded drug crimes. It used a big data policing algorithm to determine where it would suggest that police look for future drug crimes. Sure enough, HRDAG found that the data-driven model would have focused almost exclusively on low-income communities of color. But public health data on drug users combined with U.S. Census data show that the distribution of drug users does not correlate with the program’s predictions, demonstrating that the algorithm’s predictions were rooted in bias rather than reality.
All of this is why a group of academic mathematicians recently declared a boycott against helping police create predictive policing tools. They argued that their credentials and expertise create a convenient way to smuggle racist ideas about who will commit a crime based on where they live and who they know, into the mainstream through scientific legitimacy. “It is simply too easy,” they write, “to create a ’scientific’ veneer for racism.”
In addition, there is a disturbing lack of transparency surrounding many predictive policing tools. In many cases, it’s unclear how the algorithms are designed, what data is being used, and sometimes even what the system claims to predict. Vendors have sought non-disclosure clauses or otherwise shrouded their products in secrecy, citing trade secrets or business confidentiality. When data-driven policing tools are black boxes, it’s difficult to assess the risks of error rates, false positives, limits in programming capabilities, biased data, or even flaws in source code that affect search results.
For local departments, the prohibitive cost of using these predictive technologies can also be a detriment to the maintenance of civil society. In Los Angeles, the LAPD paid $20 million over the course of nine years to use Palantir’s predictive technology alone. That’s only one of many tools used by the LAPD in an attempt to predict the future.
Finally, predictive policing raises constitutional concerns. Simply living or spending time in a neighborhood or with certain people may draw suspicion from police or cause them to treat people as potential perpetrators. As legal scholar Andrew Guthrie Furgeson has written, there is tension between predictive policing and legal requirements that police possess reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Moreover, predictive policing systems sometimes utilize information from social media to assess whether a person might be likely to engage in crime, which also raises free speech issues.
Technology cannot predict crime, it can only weaponize a person’s proximity to police action. An individual should not have their presumption of innocence eroded because a casual acquaintance, family member, or neighbor commits a crime. This just opens up members of already vulnerable populations to more police harassment, erodes trust between public safety measures and the community, and ultimately creates more danger. This has already happened in Chicago, where the police surveil and monitor the social media of victims of crimes—because being a victim of a crime is one of the many factors Chicago’s predictive algorithm uses to determine if a person is at high risk of committing a crime themselves.
What Can Be Done About It?
As the Santa Cruz ban suggests, cities are beginning to wise up to the dangers of predictive policing. As with the growing movement to ban government use of face recognition and other biometric surveillance, we should also seek bans on predictive policing. Across the country, from San Francisco to Boston, almost a dozen cities have banned police use of face recognition after recognizing its disproportionate impact on people of color, its tendency to falsely accuse people of crimes, its erosion of our presumption of innocence, and its ability to track our movements.
Before predictive policing becomes even more widespread, cities should now take advantage of the opportunity to protect the well-being of their residents by passing ordinances that ban the use of this technology or prevent departments from acquiring it in the first place. If your town has legislation like a Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) ordinance, which requires elected officials to approve police purchase and use of surveillance equipment, the acquisition of predictive policing can be blocked while attempts to ban the technology are made.
The lessons from the novella and film Minority Report still apply, even in the age of big data: people are innocent until proven guilty. People should not be subject to harassment and surveillance because of their proximity to crime. For-profit software companies with secretive proprietary algorithms should not be creating black box crystal balls exempt from public scrutiny and used without constraint by law enforcement. It’s not too late to put the genie of predictive policing back in the bottle, and that is exactly what we should be urging local, state, and federal leaders to do.
Source: EFF.org
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-02--Judge Rules NSA Spying Program Revealed By Snowden Was Illegal, Useless Against Terrorists

This week , a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA ’ s controversial spying program was illegal – the same program Edward Snowden released details about to journalists in 2013 .
The landmark ruling even added that the spying program may have been unconstitutional .
The court ’ s ruling was written by Judge Marsha Berzon , who decided that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , or FISA , didn ’ t allow for the bulk collection of phone users ’ call records , as the US government claimed at the time .
“ The metadata collection exceeded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she wrote in her ruling .
The main problem is that FISA did not allow for bulk collection , only targeted collection of known suspects .
The law “ required the government to make a showing of relevance to a particular authorized investigation before collecting the records , ” according to Berzon .
Judge Berzon went on to say that there is no evidence that the spying program actually did anything to prevent a single case of terrorism , and that US officials misled the public about the program ’ s effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements of government officials created a contrary impression , that impression is inconsistent with the contents of the classified record , ” she wrote .
The NSA claims that they have since canceled the spying programs in question , but many privacy advocates suspect that they are still engaged in very similar activities , if not more invasive spying now that the technology has advanced .
On Wednesday , Edward Snowden posted about the ruling , saying that , “ I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same ruling credit me for exposing them .
And yet that day has arrived.
” “ The decision also recognizes that when the government seeks to prosecute a person , it must give notice of the secret surveillance it used to gather its evidence .
This protection is a vital one given the proliferation of novel spying tools the government uses today , ” Toomey said , according to CNet .
It is not clear what implications this could have for Snowden ’ s criminal charges or his possible return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t hurt his case .
Snowden is still facing criminal charges under the Espionage Act .
He is currently living in exile in Russia , where he got stuck and remained while attempting to evade US authorities after the now-infamous leak .
Last year , Snowden published an eye-opening memoir about his time in the intelligence community and his decision to tell the world about the massive surveillance state that had been created by the United States government .
The book , called Permanent Record , quickly rose to the top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released , but as expected , the United States government was not very happy that it was being published .
On the day that the book was released , the US government filed a lawsuit against Snowden , claiming that he violated non-disclosure agreements that he signed with both the CIA and NSA when he was employed with the agencies .
The information contained in the book must not be too sensitive at this point , because the lawsuit is not seeking to block publication of the book , but is looking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made from the sales .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By John Vibes
This week, a federal appeals court ruled that the NSA’s controversial spying program was illegal – the same program Edward Snowden released details about to journalists in 2013. The landmark ruling even added that the spying program may have been unconstitutional.
The court’s ruling was written by Judge Marsha Berzon, who decided that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, didn’t allow for the bulk collection of phone users’ call records, as the US government claimed at the time.
“The metadata collection exceeded the scope of Congress’s authorization,” she wrote in her ruling.
The main problem is that FISA did not allow for bulk collection, only targeted collection of known suspects. The law “required the government to make a showing of relevance to a particular authorized investigation before collecting the records,” according to Berzon.
Judge Berzon went on to say that there is no evidence that the spying program actually did anything to prevent a single case of terrorism, and that US officials misled the public about the program’s effectiveness.
“To the extent the public statements of government officials created a contrary impression, that impression is inconsistent with the contents of the classified record,” she wrote.
The NSA claims that they have since canceled the spying programs in question, but many privacy advocates suspect that they are still engaged in very similar activities, if not more invasive spying now that the technology has advanced.
On Wednesday, Edward Snowden posted about the ruling, saying that, “I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them. And yet that day has arrived.”
Protect Your Privacy with a Phone Shield Faraday Bag
Seven years ago, as the news declared I was being charged as a criminal for speaking the truth, I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA's activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them. And yet that day has arrived. https://t.co/FRdG2zUA4U — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) September 2, 2020
ACLU senior staff attorney Patrick Toomey called Wednesday’s ruling a victory for privacy rights.
“The decision also recognizes that when the government seeks to prosecute a person, it must give notice of the secret surveillance it used to gather its evidence. This protection is a vital one given the proliferation of novel spying tools the government uses today,” Toomey said, according to CNet.
It is not clear what implications this could have for Snowden’s criminal charges or his possible return to the US, but this certainly can’t hurt his case.
Snowden is still facing criminal charges under the Espionage Act. He is currently living in exile in Russia, where he got stuck and remained while attempting to evade US authorities after the now-infamous leak.
Last year, Snowden published an eye-opening memoir about his time in the intelligence community and his decision to tell the world about the massive surveillance state that had been created by the United States government. The book, called Permanent Record, quickly rose to the top of the charts as soon as it was released, but as expected, the United States government was not very happy that it was being published.
On the day that the book was released, the US government filed a lawsuit against Snowden, claiming that he violated non-disclosure agreements that he signed with both the CIA and NSA when he was employed with the agencies.
The information contained in the book must not be too sensitive at this point, because the lawsuit is not seeking to block publication of the book, but is looking to intercept all of the money that is made from the sales.
Source: The Mind Unleashed
Image: EFF.org
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-05--Whitney Webb Interview — 2020 Election Chaos Being Used To Set Stage For The Final Technocratic Push

By The Last American Vagabond Joining me today is Whitney Webb to discuss her recent article on the chilling 2020 @ @ @ @ @ TIP ( Transition Integrity Project ) , and how it all seems to be yet @ @ @ @ @ , seemingly all-encompassing , technocratic agenda .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com .
Subscribe to TLAV ’ s independent news broadcast on YouTube or iTunes @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , and Minds .
Support at Patreon or PayPal .
Subscribe to Activist Post @ @ @ @ @ and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE @ @ @ @ @ , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect @ @ @ @ @ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By The Last American Vagabond
Joining me today is Whitney Webb to discuss her recent article on the chilling 2020 election predictions being made by TIP (Transition Integrity Project), and how it all seems to be yet again feeding into the same, seemingly all-encompassing, technocratic agenda.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
Whitney’s Article: https://unlimitedhangout.com/2020/09/…
Ending Animation: “IN-SHADOW – A Modern Odyssey – Animated Short Film” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j800S…
Visit TheLastAmericanVagabond.com. Subscribe to TLAV’s independent news broadcast on YouTube or iTunes. Follow on Facebook, Twitter, and Minds. Support at Patreon or PayPal.
Image: chrisdiontewalker
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-04--U.S. House Votes To Pass Landmark Legislation On Legalizing Marijuana

The U.S. HOUSE is set to vote on a landmark bill that , if it passes , would put an end to the federal prohibition of cannabis , putting the nail into the coffin of the failed “ war on drugs.
” If the legislation passes it would then head to the Senate for a final vote to comprehensively put an end to the federal prohibition of cannabis , allowing taxation of the plant .
The vote will take place during the week of September 21 , according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) .
This will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s history voting on federally legalizing cannabis .
In November , the House Judiciary passed House Resolution – 3884—the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act or MORE Act—in another important bipartisan vote .
But since that decision passed , the law has been waiting on further action to be voted upon by the U.S House of Representatives to then be passed down to the Senate .
The MORE Act , introduced by Chairman Jerrold Nadler ( D-NY ) , would remove cannabis from the federal Controlled Substances Act , where it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance .
The bill would also expunge some marijuana-related criminal records , though it would still be ultimately up to states themselves to pass their own regulations on the sale of marijuana .
“ It ’ s about time , ” Nadler told USA TODAY , calling it a “ historic vote ” marking the beginning of the end of the federal government ’ s “ 40-year , very misguided crusade ” against marijuana .
Beyond that , banks would have the ability to offer credit cards and checking accounts to legal cannabis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential medicinal benefits of the plant would be easier to undertake .
The act also authorizes a provision of resources , through a 5 % sales tax on cannabis products , toward addressing the needs of communities who have suffered serious negative impacts from prohibition enforcement , especially those communities of persons ’ of color that have suffered disproportionate over-policing and mass incarceration .
The announcement by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn , D-S.C. , was welcomed by advocates for the legalization of cannabis .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many months of hard work and collaboration , we finally have a chance to end the failed policy of prohibition that has resulted in a long and shameful period of selective enforcement against people of color , especially Black men , ” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer ( D-OR ) , co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus .
“ As people across the country protest racial injustices , there ’ s even greater urgency for Congress to seize this historic opportunity and finally align our cannabis laws with what the majority of Americans support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Blumenauer added .
An ACLU report analyzing marijuana-related arrests from 2010 to 2018 found that Black people were 3.64 times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession .
The MORE Act was initially opposed by Republicans , including many who supported a separate bipartisan cannabis reform bill called the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States ( STATES ) Act .
However , the MORE Act goes much further than the STATES Act , which lacked the social equity elements and formal removal of cannabis from the Controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first-ever comprehensive marijuana legalization bill to ever be considered for a full House floor vote , ” said Queen Adesuyi , national affairs policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance .
The removal of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I narcotic would mean that the plant would no longer be defined by the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) as a drug “ with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse ” shared with the same classification as LSD and heroin .
While five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , none have added their names to the More Act .
Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) was an original co-sponsor of the MORE Act and has put forward his own Marijuana Justice Act .
“ This war on pot has not been a war on pot , ” Booker said last year .
“ It has been a war on Black people and brown people and low-income people .
This is not about the legalization of marijuana .
That ’ s too simplistic .
This is about restorative justice .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” According to a 2019 Gallup survey , 66 % of Americans supported legalization , though support did differ by party .
More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported legalization , as opposed to about half of Republicans .
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana , and 33 states , the District of Columbia , Guam , Puerto Rico , and the U.S. Virgin Islands have legalized medical marijuana , but marijuana is still illegal at the federal level .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Aaron Kesel
The U.S. HOUSE is set to vote on a landmark bill that, if it passes, would put an end to the federal prohibition of cannabis, putting the nail into the coffin of the failed “war on drugs.”
If the legislation passes it would then head to the Senate for a final vote to comprehensively put an end to the federal prohibition of cannabis, allowing taxation of the plant.
The vote will take place during the week of September 21, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). This will be the first time in the chamber’s history voting on federally legalizing cannabis.
In November, the House Judiciary passed House Resolution – 3884—the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act or MORE Act—in another important bipartisan vote. But since that decision passed, the law has been waiting on further action to be voted upon by the U.S House of Representatives to then be passed down to the Senate.
The MORE Act, introduced by Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would remove cannabis from the federal Controlled Substances Act, where it is currently scheduled as a Class 1 controlled substance. The bill would also expunge some marijuana-related criminal records, though it would still be ultimately up to states themselves to pass their own regulations on the sale of marijuana.
“It’s about time,” Nadler told USA TODAY, calling it a “historic vote” marking the beginning of the end of the federal government’s “40-year, very misguided crusade” against marijuana.
Beyond that, banks would have the ability to offer credit cards and checking accounts to legal cannabis businesses, and the study of any potential medicinal benefits of the plant would be easier to undertake.
The act also authorizes a provision of resources, through a 5% sales tax on cannabis products, toward addressing the needs of communities who have suffered serious negative impacts from prohibition enforcement, especially those communities of persons’ of color that have suffered disproportionate over-policing and mass incarceration.
The announcement by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., was welcomed by advocates for the legalization of cannabis.
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
“After many months of hard work and collaboration, we finally have a chance to end the failed policy of prohibition that has resulted in a long and shameful period of selective enforcement against people of color, especially Black men,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus.
“As people across the country protest racial injustices, there’s even greater urgency for Congress to seize this historic opportunity and finally align our cannabis laws with what the majority of Americans support, while ensuring restorative justice,” Rep. Blumenauer added.
An ACLU report analyzing marijuana-related arrests from 2010 to 2018 found that Black people were 3.64 times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession.
The MORE Act was initially opposed by Republicans, including many who supported a separate bipartisan cannabis reform bill called the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act.
However, the MORE Act goes much further than the STATES Act, which lacked the social equity elements and formal removal of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.
“It’s the first-ever comprehensive marijuana legalization bill to ever be considered for a full House floor vote,” said Queen Adesuyi, national affairs policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance.
The removal of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I narcotic would mean that the plant would no longer be defined by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse” shared with the same classification as LSD and heroin.
While five Senate Republicans have co-sponsored the STATES Act, none have added their names to the More Act.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) was an original co-sponsor of the MORE Act and has put forward his own Marijuana Justice Act.
“This war on pot has not been a war on pot,” Booker said last year. “It has been a war on Black people and brown people and low-income people. This is not about the legalization of marijuana. That’s too simplistic. This is about restorative justice. It’s about equal justice under the law.”
According to a 2019 Gallup survey, 66% of Americans supported legalization, though support did differ by party. More than three-quarters of Democrats said they supported legalization, as opposed to about half of Republicans.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and 33 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have legalized medical marijuana, but marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.
**By [@An0nkn0wledge](https://hive.blog/@an0nkn0wledge)**
Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post.
Image: The Anti-Media
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-09-04--T-Mobile Unleashes 5G In 81 More U.S. Towns And Cities Despite Opposition and Warnings

American 5G opposition and warnings are getting so much attention now that they were recently the subject of a Dilbert comic strip .
Opposition is about more than biological ( see 1 , 2 ) and environmental risks ( see 1 , 2 ) though .
Federal agencies and other experts warn that 5G also threatens national security , public safety , and weather forecasting accuracy ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Congress members have also addressed the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) with safety concerns .
Legislators have taken action too – filing lawsuits against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5G deployment until studies prove it ’ s safe ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) and also ordinances to limit and/or control installation .
State representatives in Hawaii and Illinois have introduced 5G bills .
Also in Illinois – both Republican and Democrat legislators and candidates are taking a stand against deployment .
T-Mobile isn ’ t the only company warning about liability issues with their technology or reporting problems with their devices ( see 1 , 2 ) .
It ’ s also not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite all of this AND COVID-19 ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
T-Mobile adds faster midband 5G coverage to 81 new cities and towns 5G is slowly but surely arriving to more US cities T-Mobile on Wednesday announced a much wider rollout of its 2.5GHz midband 5G coverage , adding 81 new cities and towns to a total list of 90 markets throughout the US .
Midband 5G is much faster and more appropriately fitting of the 5G moniker than the type of low-band 5G we ’ ve seen from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliable than high-band mmWave 5G , which is used primarily by Verizon , although AT & T and T-Mobile also have limited support .
( mmWave 5G is ultra-fast but has poor range . )
T-Mobile also has low-band and mmWave coverage , but the company is touting its three-layer approach of low- , mid- , and high-band 5G as its edge over the competition .
Become an Activist Post Patron for $ 1 per month at Patreon .
The majority of scientists worldwide are opposed to 5G until studies show that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ENTIRE COUNTRIES have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation as well as issue moratoriums ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) .
Nevertheless , despite all of this and the reality that it will eliminate millions of jobs , Trump recently reintroduced his proposal for a nationalized 5G plan .
That ’ s keeping America great ?
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites @

By B.N. Frank
American 5G opposition and warnings are getting so much attention now that they were recently the subject of a Dilbert comic strip. Opposition is about more than biological (see 1, 2) and environmental risks (see 1, 2) though.
Federal agencies and other experts warn that 5G also threatens national security, public safety, and weather forecasting accuracy (see 1, 2, 3).
Congress members have also addressed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with safety concerns. Legislators have taken action too – filing lawsuits against the FCC, passing resolutions to ban 5G deployment until studies prove it’s safe (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and also ordinances to limit and/or control installation. State representatives in Hawaii and Illinois have introduced 5G bills. Also in Illinois – both Republican and Democrat legislators and candidates are taking a stand against deployment.
T-Mobile isn’t the only company warning about liability issues with their technology or reporting problems with their devices (see 1, 2). It’s also not the only company continuing to install 5G despite all of this AND COVID-19 (see 1, 2, 3).
From The Verge:
T-Mobile adds faster midband 5G coverage to 81 new cities and towns 5G is slowly but surely arriving to more US cities T-Mobile on Wednesday announced a much wider rollout of its 2.5GHz midband 5G coverage, adding 81 new cities and towns to a total list of 90 markets throughout the US. Midband 5G is much faster and more appropriately fitting of the 5G moniker than the type of low-band 5G we’ve seen from AT&T and T-Mobile and more reliable than high-band mmWave 5G, which is used primarily by Verizon, although AT&T and T-Mobile also have limited support. (mmWave 5G is ultra-fast but has poor range.) T-Mobile also has low-band and mmWave coverage, but the company is touting its three-layer approach of low-, mid-, and high-band 5G as its edge over the competition. Read full article
Become an Activist Post Patron for $1 per month at Patreon.
The majority of scientists worldwide are opposed to 5G until studies show that it’s safe. Cities worldwide and ENTIRE COUNTRIES have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation as well as issue moratoriums (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Nevertheless, despite all of this and the reality that it will eliminate millions of jobs, Trump recently reintroduced his proposal for a nationalized 5G plan. That’s keeping America great?
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.


activistpost--2020-09-04--Privacy Reset: UK Readies Digital ID Cards For British Citizens

COVID hysteria is being used to complete a system of total control .
The UK ’ s ID system will be used as a COVID-19 passport as well as a tracker for all Internet usage .
As the modern saying goes , “ He who has the data , makes the rules.
” Technocrats are continuing their coup d ’ etat .
⁃ Technocracy News & Trends Editor , Patrick Wood Downing Street is planning new digital ID cards for British citizens as Dominic Cummings bids to transform the Government ’ s use of data despite privacy fears .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be used for daily activities such as proving ones age , registering with a GP and buying properties from a different location .
It comes after issues emerged in identifying people during the Covid-19 pandemic , such as during the self-employment income support scheme .
The government did not have any details on half of the 2.6million who applied for support at the start of the crisis .
Some – such as Tony Blair – called for new digital ID cards to prove their ‘ disease status ’ as the world relaxed lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warman told the Times he was excited to ‘ work with partners in the private sector ’ .
Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez added : ‘ There is a need and an expectation for the government to make it easier for people to use digital identities quickly , safely and securely , and we are committed to enabling this.
’ But naysayers have said the plans to ‘ remove regulatory barriers ’ would result in problems over privacy .
Matthew Rice of the Open Rights Group said : ‘ If the public don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be secure , they are not going to engage with the system no matter how seamless or frictionless.
’ Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

COVID hysteria is being used to complete a system of total control. The UK’s ID system will be used as a COVID-19 passport as well as a tracker for all Internet usage. As the modern saying goes, “He who has the data, makes the rules.” Technocrats are continuing their coup d’etat. ⁃ Technocracy News & Trends Editor, Patrick Wood
Downing Street is planning new digital ID cards for British citizens as Dominic Cummings bids to transform the Government’s use of data despite privacy fears.
People will get an online identity that can be used for daily activities such as proving ones age, registering with a GP and buying properties from a different location.
It comes after issues emerged in identifying people during the Covid-19 pandemic, such as during the self-employment income support scheme.
The government did not have any details on half of the 2.6million who applied for support at the start of the crisis.
Some – such as Tony Blair – called for new digital ID cards to prove their ‘disease status’ as the world relaxed lockdown measures.
Downing Street is planning new digital ID cards for British citizens as Dominic Cummings (pictured yesterday) bids to transform the Government’s use of data despite privacy fears
Minister for digital infrastructure Matt Warman told the Times he was excited to ‘work with partners in the private sector’.
Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez added: ‘There is a need and an expectation for the government to make it easier for people to use digital identities quickly, safely and securely, and we are committed to enabling this.’
But naysayers have said the plans to ‘remove regulatory barriers’ would result in problems over privacy.
Matthew Rice of the Open Rights Group said: ‘If the public don’t trust that their data is going to be secure, they are not going to engage with the system no matter how seamless or frictionless.’
Read full story here…
Sourced from Technocracy News & Trends
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.