# data[].attributes.body
Text (specifically Page 218) regarding inhumane detaining for wrongful tip off on surveillance (Angwin, 2014):

2009, Gulet Mohamed (age 18), U.S. Citizen Born in Somalia and Kuwait

Renew Visa for study abroad

Handcuffed blindfolded, tortured for being suspect of knowing a militant for 1 week

14 days later, “allowed home” but cant due to being on the suspect list still even after release..

Data is not reviled even when “permitted” to see evidence used against detained.

Provided by undisclosed third party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dragnet Nation Ch 15 an unfairness doctrine

# data[].attributes.body
Third Party defined as:  "An individual or entity that is involved in a transaction but is not one of the principals and, thus, has a lesser interest in the transaction" (Kenton & Scott, 2020).

Note that there is no law, rule or guidelines for the data collection on individual use (strictly government and attacks upon the state).

Through internet websites and applications human's are the product. Allowing lax guidelines on how information may be passed on.

Through Third Parties illegal acts can be performed by governments legally

ex. Ongoing debate of Russian manipulation in 2016 elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet Privacy Laws Revealed - How Your Personal Information is Protected Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out how Internet privacy laws help protect your personal information online and what data protection measures you can use against cyber threats.

# data[].attributes.body
Non-profit organization (onset 1920)

Goal to to aid those under the the given rights under the Constitution of the United States

Fights unjust actions against citizens

The questions are:

Where is this in the law?

What is the protection of law from government?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Privacy today faces growing threats from a growing surveillance apparatus that is often justified in the name of national security. Numerous government agencies-including the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and state and local law enforcement agencies-intrude upon the private communications of innocent citizens, amass vast databases of who we call and when, and catalog "suspicious activities" based on the vaguest standards.

The government's collection of this sensitive information is itself an invasion of privacy. But its use of this data is also rife with abuse. Innocuous data is fed into bloated watchlists, with severe consequences-innocent individuals have found themselves unable to board planes, barred from certain types of jobs, shut out of their bank accounts, and repeatedly questioned by authorities. Once information is in the government's hands, it can be shared widely and retained for years, and the rules about access and use can be changed entirely in secret without the public ever knowing.

Our Constitution and democratic system demand that the government be transparent and accountable to the people, not the other way around. History has shown that powerful, secret surveillance tools will almost certainly be abused for political ends and turned disproportionately on disfavored minorities.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of the struggle to prevent the entrenchment of a surveillance state by challenging the secrecy of the government's surveillance and watchlisting practices; its violations of our rights to privacy, free speech, due process, and association; and its stigmatization of minority communities and activists disproportionately targeted by surveillance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy and Surveillance | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

# data[].attributes.body
Walmart is also a possible threat in the collecting of private information.

Buyers enter the website:  name, address, credit card, purchases with patterns.

Algorithms are made from these patterns identifying the what status in life the individual is.

These harmless "shopping lists" may be intentionally or unintentionally leaked (White, 2014)

“In March 2007, Walmart's "Threat Research and Analysis Group" fired Bruce Gabbard, a computer technician, for unauthorized recording of conversations between Walmart and a New York Times reporter, Michael Barbaro, and intercepting Walmart colleagues' text messages. After leaving Walmart, Gabbard disclosed some of Walmart's surveillance practices, including targeting citizens groups and critics” (Ruskin, 2013)

# data[].attributes.body
Why has Nothing been brought forward?

Blind Trust (Filter Bubble)

Algorithmic distortions only showing what the individual search patterns correlate to. Which in turn gratifies the instant gratification of dopamine (Orlowski, 2020).

Use of internet has become a need, not a want.

“It’s the gradual, slight, imperceptible change in your own behavior and perception that is the product.” - Jarson Lainer (2020)

Used for for capitalistic gain

Tracking in what people do, look, stream, timing, examines personality (2020).

These algorithms made to study the individual(s) are for profit not one's own health (2020).

Further having individuals susceptible to "Polarization, addiction, and radicalization" (2020)

Highly recommended film from the inside point of view from social networks:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Social Dilemma | Official Clip | More Information | Netflix

# data[].attributes.body
Measuring Dragnet Validity (Material or non-material) (Angwin, 2014):

1.“Does the dragnet provide individuals with legal right to access, correct, and dispute the data?”

2. “Are the dragnet operators held accountable for the way the data are used?”

3. “Is the dragnet too intrusive for its purpose?”

4. “Does it benefit society?”

5.“Can it withstand public scrutiny?”

# data[].attributes.headline
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Orlowski, 2020)

# data[].attributes.subject
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Orlowski, 2020)

# data[].attributes.body
AI algorithms are made for profit, not for the health or well being of individuals.

It does not understand right, wrong, or trust. Just mere patterns.

In terms of surveillance and social media, we are not evolved to of social disproval against thousands of people in a single day.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The United Nations. (1948, December 10). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from United Nations" Peace, Dignity, and Equality on a Healthy Planet: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

# data[].attributes.body
What is the Change We Wish to See?

75 % of U.S. adults say there should be more government regulation of what companies can do with customers' information (Pew Research Center, 2013) (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).
Actions to Help

Writing letters to your senators

Protests towards selected informant companies

Civil Counsel Meetings (ACLU, 2021)

For more laws for third party associations on concealing the privacy.

Use alternative non-tracking search or messaging programs (Qwant as seen below).

Even the so called "safe" WhatsApp had messages uploaded unto the Google search system.

Boycott products and companies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The search engine that doesn't know anything about you, and that changes everything!

Zero tracking of your searches

Zero advertising tracking

Zero sale of your personal data

Being informed should not turn you into a " Click machine "

Turning our users into click machines goes against our ethics. That's why, at Qwant, we don't track advertising or analyze your personal data. Qwant puts aside the algorithms that pre-format the web and turn you into a commodity.

Here, no trackers or advertising cookies

Have you noticed that there is no advertising cookie banner on Qwant? Does that surprise you? We think that's normal. We do not sell your data, it belongs to you!

But why is there advertising on Qwant?

Simply to finance our model, as a European search engine that does not track or store your data and intends to remain free.

In short, contextual ads are the same for everyone, we don't track you while you search.

Browse protected on all websites by installing Qwant VIPrivacy :

Qwant becomes your default search engine

Less cookies, no more intrusive banners!

Block trackers, finally free!

At Qwant, we respect our users' privacy and the confidentiality of their searches. We don't know who our users are, we don't store their search history, and we don't track advertising. Users are anonymous to us.

The search engine that doesn't know anything about you, and that changes everything: zero tracking of your searches, zero personal data use, zero targeted advertising.

The map service that finds the right addresses and guides you around without tracking you.

The only secure search engine designed for children's learning and their parents' peace of mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The search engine that doesn't know anything about you, and that changes everything! Zero tracking of your searches Zero advertising tracking Zero sale of your personal data Being informed should not turn you into a " Click machine " Turning our users into click machines goes against our ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality
(a) Social workers should respect clients' right to privacy. Social workers should not solicit private information from or about clients except for compelling professional reasons. Once private information is shared, standards of confidentiality apply.
(h) Social workers should not disclose confidential information to third-party payers unless clients have authorized such disclosure.
(i) Social workers should not discuss confidential information, electronically or in person, in any setting unless privacy can be ensured.
(l) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients' written and electronic records and other sensitive information.
(m) Social workers should take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of electronic communications, including information provided to clients or third parties. Social workers should use applicable safeguards (such as encryption, firewalls, and passwords) when using electronic communications such as e-mail, online posts, online chat sessions, mobile communication, and text messages.
(o) In the event of unauthorized access to client records or information, including any unauthorized access to the social worker's electronic communication or storage systems, social workers should inform clients of such disclosures, consistent with applicable laws and professional standards.
(p) Social workers should develop and inform clients about their policies, consistent with prevailing social work ethical standards, on the use of electronic technology, including Internet-based search engines, to gather information about clients.
(q) Social workers should avoid searching or gathering client information electronically unless there are compelling professional reasons, and when appropriate, with the client's informed consent.
(r) Social workers should avoid posting any identifying or confidential information about clients on professional Web sites or other forms of social media.
NASW Delegate Assembly. (1996). Code of Ethics of National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from NASW National Association of Social Workers: https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/History

# data[].attributes.body
Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Jefferson, P. T. (2015, October 12). The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence. United States of America: National Center for Constitutional Studies.

# data[].attributes.body
"A system of mass surveillance suppresses our own freedom in all sorts of ways."

# data[].attributes.body
“Göring (Hermann Göring, head commander of the Luftwaffe, air force)  created the Forschungsamt, the Reich intelligence agency charged with signals intelligence, wire tapping, and cryptanalysts. Its operatives, chiefly code breakers and analysts, numbered 3500 or more, operating through Germany and later occupied Europe until the end of the war” (Irving,1989)..

Post 9/11 Patriot Act (2001) contradicts the 4th Amendment of The Constitution, to invade privacy over the populace to prevent a terrorist attack (White, 2014).

Deliberating one’s privacy, autonomy, liberty, and human dignity.

Chain of Command for surveillance is Office of National Intelligence (ONI), and Department of Homeland Security. Which gather information ("anonymously") further down the chain (White 2014). Third parties may be voluntary or involuntary informants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress has enacted comprehensive legislation governing electronic surveillance. In 1968, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., was enacted. In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("1986 Act"), Public Law No. 99-508, which substantially revised Title III to provide coverage for the technological advances developed in the area of electronic communications since the passage of the original act. And most recently in 1994, Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ("1994 Act"), Public Law No. 103-414, which extended the protections of the 1986 Act to cordless phones and certain data communications transmitted by radio and also expanded criminal penalties for using certain devices to steal mobile phone service. Relatively minor amendments were also made by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-322 and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-132.

These sections explain the criminal provisions contained in Title III, as amended by the 1986 Act and the 1994 Act, other criminal provisions added by the 1986 Act, and the criminal prohibitions in the Federal Communications Act. The criminal sanction in FISA is dealt with in JM 9-60.400.

The statutes prohibiting illegal electronic surveillance discussed in these sections are:

18 U.S.C. § 2510, which defines the terms used throughout Title III;

18 U.S.C. § 2511, which prohibits the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications and the subsequent disclosure or use of illegally intercepted communications;

18 U.S.C. § 2512, which prohibits the manufacture, possession, advertisement, sale, and transportation in interstate or foreign commerce of devices that are primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of communications;

18 U.S.C. § 2513, which provides for the forfeiture of any device which is used, manufactured, or possessed in violation of sections 2511 or 2512;

18 U.S.C. § 2701, which prohibits unauthorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage;

18 U.S.C. § 3121, which prohibits the installation of a pen register or trap and trace device without court authorization;

18 U.S.C. § 2232(c), which prohibits giving notice of a court-approved electronic surveillance application in order to obstruct, impede, or prevent the interception;

18 U.S.C. § 2521, which authorizes the Attorney General to initiate civil proceedings to enjoin felony violations of Title III;

18 U.S.C. § 1367, which prohibits interference with the operation of a satellite;

47 U.S.C. § 605, which prohibits interception and divulgence or use of radio communications;

47 U.S.C. § 553, which prohibits receiving cable communications services without permission of the operator; and

47 U.S.C. § 502, which punishes willful and knowing violations of Federal Communication Commission regulations.

[cited in JM 9-60.100; JM 9-60.200]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1040. Introduction to Criminal Sanctions for Illegal Electronic Surveillance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress has enacted comprehensive legislation governing electronic surveillance. In 1968, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., was enacted.

# data[].attributes.headline
International Business Machines Corporation 

# data[].attributes.subject
International Business Machines Corporation 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News' Steve Hilton, former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf warned that mandatory COVID-19 passports will spell the "end of human liberty in the West":

"'Vaccine passport' sounds like a fine thing if you don't understand what those platforms can do," she said. "I'm [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it's not about the virus, it's about your data.

Once this rolls out, you don't have a choice about being part of the system. What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency.

Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included.

This has already happened in Israel, and six months later, we're hearing from activists that it's a two-tiered society and that basically, activists are ostracized and surveilled continually. It is the end of civil society, and they are trying to roll it out around the world.

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass ... I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized."

The Forgotten History of IBM

Wolf also points out the horrific history of IBM, whose Digital Health Pass will tie our biometric IDs to our health data through its smartphone app. This "health pass" will then grant or deny us access to public spaces and events, based on our vaccination status.

This is essentially the modern-day version of the punch card system - the forerunner to digital entry on computers - that IBM developed for the Nazi regime, which allowed them to create a census of Jews and other undesirables, who could then be identified, tracked and sorted into groups slated for incarceration or extermination.

In no uncertain terms, IBM's technology facilitated the Third Reich's genocide of the Jewish nation, and IBM leadership aided and abetted the Nazi's reign of terror with full knowledge of what it was doing.

While it's hard to understand how a company playing such an integral role in genocide was allowed to survive past the end of the war, it's even harder to fathom why it would be entrusted to create the same kind of system decades later.

You don't need a tinfoil hat to wonder whether IBM might have been purposely chosen for the task of creating a "health pass" system, for the simple reason that the purpose of the system itself is near-identical to that deployed in Nazi Germany. IBM also has a relationship with the CIA, which has a history of mind control abuses and assassination programs.

IBM Played Strategic Role in the Holocaust

IBM's connection to the Third Reich is no secret, and IBM has never denied even the most incriminating details of its involvement in the holocaust. In 2001, Edwin Black, a historian and investigative author, published the book "IBM and the Holocaust," in which he detailed the company's pivotal role in this criminal tragedy.

The book was based on documentation obtained from archives in seven different countries. In 2012, Black obtained another cache of correspondence that revealed just how much IBM knew about what was going on in the Nazi concentration camps. In a February 2012 article in HuffPost, Black wrote:

"Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM's pivotal role in the Holocaust - all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination.

Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company's co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler's campaign to destroy the Jews ..."

The fact that Watson received a 1% commission on all business profits made from the company's business with the Nazis may help explain his eagerness to take on such a hands-on role in this gruesome business. Black continues:

"The new 'expanded edition' [of 'IBM and the Holocaust'] contains 32 pages of never-before-published internal IBM correspondence, State Department and Justice Department memos, and concentration camp documents that graphically chronicle IBM's actions and what they knew during the 12-year Hitler regime ...

Among the newly-released documents and archival materials are secret 1941 correspondence setting up the Dutch subsidiary of IBM to work in tandem with the Nazis, company President Thomas Watson's personal approval for the 1939 release of special IBM alphabetizing machines to help organize ... the deportation of Polish Jews, as well as the IBM Concentration Camp Codes including IBM's code for death by Gas Chamber.

Among the newly published photos of the punch cards is the one developed for the statistician who reported directly to Himmler and Eichmann."

IBM Guilty of Genocide

As explained by Black, the population census and identification of Jews were managed by IBM directly, first at its New York headquarter, and later through subsidiaries in Germany, Poland, Holland, France, Switzerland and other European countries. IBM headquarters also directed the activities of a Dutch subsidiary charged with identifying and liquidating Jews in Holland.

"Particularly powerful are the newly-released copies of the IBM concentration camp codes," Black writes. "IBM maintained a customer site ... in virtually every concentration camp to sort or process punch cards and track prisoners. The codes show IBM's numerical designation for various camps ...

Various prisoner types were reduced to IBM numbers, with 3 signifying homosexual, 9 for anti-social, and 12 for Gypsy. The IBM number 8 designated a Jew. Inmate death was also reduced to an IBM digit: 3 represented death by natural causes, 4 by execution, 5 by suicide, and code 6 designated 'special treatment' in gas chambers.

IBM engineers had to create Hollerith codes to differentiate between a Jew who had been worked to death and one who had been gassed, then print the cards, configure the machines, train the staff, and continuously maintain the fragile systems every two weeks on site in the concentration camps."

A particularly noteworthy memo came from the U.S. Justice Department, which post-war launched a federal investigation into IBM's relationship with the Hitler regime. The memo, written by Howard J. Carter, the chief investigator of the Economic Warfare Section to his superiors, read:

" What Hitler has done to us through his economic warfare, one of our own American corporations has also done ... Hence IBM is in a class with the Nazis ... The entire world citizenry is hampered by an international monster."

"It is important to remember that Thomas Watson and his corporate behemoth were guilty of genocide. The Treaty on Genocide, Article 2, defines genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.'

In Article 3, the treaty states that among the 'acts [that] shall be punishable,' are the ones in subsection (e), that is 'complicity in genocide.'

As for who shall be punished, the Treaty specifies the perpetrators in Article 4: 'Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.' International Business Machines, and its president Thomas J. Watson, committed genocide by any standard."

Massively Organized Information as a Means of Social Control

As noted in Black's introduction to his book, "IBM and the Holocaust," at the time of Hitler's rise to power, the world was unaware that "massively organized information" had "emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction." Today, we cannot be accused of not understanding that massive data collection can be and is being used to manipulate societies across the globe.

Therefore, it would be insanely naïve to think that digital vaccine certificates, tied to our biometric IDs, banking, credit histories and health data would not end up being used as a tool for social control and a weapon for group destruction.

As Black points out, were it not for IBM and its information technology, Hitler, like other tyrants before him, would not have been nearly as successful in his plan to eradicate the Jews. Hitler also received help from other unexpected quarters:

"In the upside-down world of the Holocaust, dignified professionals were Hitler's advance troops. Police officials disregarded their duty in favor of protecting villains and persecuting victims.

Lawyers perverted concepts of justice to create anti-Jewish laws. Doctors defiled the art of medicine to perpetrate ghastly experiments and even choose who was healthy enough to be worked to death - and who could be cost-effectively sent to the gas chamber," Black writes.

"Scientists and engineers debased their higher calling to devise the instruments and rationales of destruction. And statisticians used their little known but powerful discipline to identify the victims, project and rationalize the benefits of their destruction, organize their persecution, and even audit the efficiency of genocide."

Will You Allow Yourself To Be Turned Into a Monster?

Edmund Burke once said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Put another way, good people need to gather their wherewithal and refuse to follow instructions they suspect to be harmful or know will lead to evil ends.

Unfortunately, as demonstrated in the 1962 Milgram Experiment, featured in " Will You Obey the Criminal Authoritarians? " most people simply follow orders when given by a perceived authority. "I was just following orders" was indeed a hallmark excuse during the Nuremberg Trials that followed the end of World War II.

That excuse won't suffice this time around, so just about everyone, at this point, probably need to engage in some preemptive internal reflection to orient their ethical compass in preparation for what might come next.

I have no doubt that the months and years ahead will test your ethics and humanity, and having a clear picture of recent history - how the greatest genocide in modern history was actually implemented and carried out using information technology - can be a valuable guide that can help you sidestep serious mistakes in judgment.

The Central Role of Information Technology in the Holocaust

In his book introduction, Black summarizes the key role of IBM's information technology in the holocaust:

"When Hitler came to power, a central Nazi goal was to identify and destroy Germany's 600,000 Jews. To Nazis, Jews were not just those who practiced Judaism, but those of Jewish blood, regardless of their assimilation, intermarriage, religious activity, or even conversion to Christianity.

Only after Jews were identified could they be targeted for asset confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and ultimately extermination. To search generations of communal, church, and governmental records all across Germany - and later throughout Europe - was a cross-indexing task so monumental, it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed.

When the Reich needed to mount a systematic campaign of Jewish economic disenfranchisement and later began the massive movement of European Jews out of their homes and into ghettos, once again, the task was so prodigious it called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed.

When the Final Solution sought to efficiently transport Jews out of European ghettos along railroad lines and into death camps, with timing so precise the victims were able to walk right out of the boxcar and into a waiting gas chamber, the coordination was so complex a task, this too called for a computer. But in 1933, no computer existed.

However, another invention did exist: the IBM punch card and card sorting system - a precursor to the computer. IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success.

IBM Germany, using its own staff and equipment, designed, executed, and supplied the indispensable technologic assistance Hitler's Third Reich needed to accomplish what had never been done before - the automation of human destruction ...

I was haunted by a question whose answer has long eluded historians. The Germans always had the lists of Jewish names. Suddenly, a squadron of grim-faced SS would burst into a city square and post a notice demanding those listed assemble the next day at the train station for deportation to the East. But how did the Nazis get the lists? For decades, no one has known. Few have asked.

The answer: IBM Germany's census operations and similar advanced people counting and registration technologies. IBM was founded in 1898 by German inventor Herman Hollerith as a census tabulating company. Census was its business. But when IBM Germany formed its philosophical and technologic alliance with Nazi Germany, census and registration took on a new mission.

IBM Germany invented the racial census - listing not just religious affiliation, but bloodline going back generations. This was the Nazi data lust. Not just to count the Jews - but to identify them.

People and asset registration was only one of the many uses Nazi Germany found for high-speed data sorters. Food allocation was organized around databases, allowing Germany to starve the Jews.

Slave labor was identified, tracked, and managed largely through punch cards. Punch cards even made the trains run on time and cataloged their human cargo. German Railway ... dealt directly with senior management in Berlin. Dehomag maintained punch card installations at train depots across Germany, and eventually across all Europe."

Using a mere 2,000 precomputer automatic tabulators, the Third Reich was able to efficiently identify, sort, track and catch Jews of every stripe in multiple countries. Now fast-forward to today, where virtually every person on the planet has had their personal data siphoned off, hour by hour, day by day, year by year.

Decades' worth of data are catalogued and cross-tabulated in ways we probably cannot even imagine. How efficient do you reckon a modern-day holocaust by would-be dictators might be, using the technologies of today? I'll leave that for you to ponder.

IG Farben, Another Genocide Enabler

So far, no Big Tech company has vowed to ban their technologies from being used in an attempt to repeat the Holocaust, and that includes IBM, which played a central role in it.

In a 2002 Village Voice article, Black addressed this shortcoming, pointing out that while IBM has refused to discuss its role in Hitler's regime, other companies, such as the German media conglomerate Bertelsmann and Ford Motor have at least had the couth to correct their company histories, admitting to (and apologizing for) sponsoring Hitler.

While technology played a determining role in the Holocaust, leaders in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry were also working with Hitler. One of the most prominent ones was the German chemical and drug company IG Farben, which had a factory complex near Monowitz (the slave labor camp at Auschwitz) and actually housed the IBM facilities there.

IG Farben used slave labor from the Monowitz camp and IBM's technology to keep track of them. "The Monowitz systems were customized for the specific coding Farben needed to process the thousands of slave workers who labored and died there," Black explains. Auschwitz archivist Piotr Setkiewicz further told Black:

"The Hollerith office at IG Farben in Monowitz used the IBM machines as a system of computerization of civil and slave labor resources. This gave Farben the opportunity to identify people with certain skills, primarily skills needed for the construction of certain buildings in Monowitz."

Of course, IG Farben was also in the business of pharmaceuticals, and prisoners from Auschwitz were used for horrific medical experiments at the company's facility.

While IG Farben executives were put on trial after the war, their sentences were light. As just one example, Fritz Ter Meer, a high-ranking executive charged with slavery and mass medical murder served just three of his seven-year sentence, and after release became chairman of Bayer's advisory board.

Some have speculated that the reason they got off so lightly was because of their connections to other powerful figures, such as John Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil and one of the masterminds behind the creation of Big Pharma. (There was actually a Standard Oil IG Farben company. Without the fossil fuels of Standard Oil, IG Farben couldn't have made synthetic fertilizers or fuels.) As noted by Jon Rappoport:

"You could say that, after the War, the emerging global pharmaceutical colossus was a reincarnation of the Farben pattern: Profit before safety; lethal medical experimentation beyond any legal limit; the use of drugs/vaccines as a means of control."

IBM Partners With Moderna

IBM has now partnered with COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna, and together, they are producing digital COVID-19 vaccine passes to track vaccinated individuals in real time. A pilot program has already been rolled out in state of New York.

IBM and Moderna will "explore technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain and hybrid cloud" to "support smarter COVID-19 vaccine management," according to a press release. In short, the partnership is aimed at facilitating data sharing between "governments, health care providers, life science organizations and individuals," but this data is not restricted to health data.

As reported by Raul Diego in a March 10, 2021, Mint Press News article, other "multiple blockchain ledger applications" being leveraged include IBM'sBlockchain Transparent Supply and Food Trust services, which shares food sourcing and supply-chain data, and its Blockchain World Wire cross-border payment processing service.

Considering how similar kinds of data (but far less voluminous) was used to carry out Hitler's genocide, we really need to start thinking about how all of this data collecting and sharing might be misused. While not discussed much, the collection of genetic data is part and parcel of this program as well, which opens all sorts of unpleasant possibilities.

IBM Is a Powerful Presence in Law Enforcement as Well

Already, in Israel, the requirement of vaccine certificates has resulted in the creation of a two-tier society where unvaccinated individuals are ostracized and forbidden from entering certain public venues such as bars, restaurants, hotels and public exercise facilities.

Right now in the U.S., vaccine passports are voluntary, but IBM is already looking at its health pass as a model for what it predicts will be mandatory in the future. According to IBM's U.S. public and federal market leader, Steve LaFleche, the passes will cease to be voluntary "once government guidelines and regulations force the private sector to enforce their implementation." As noted by Diego:

"Conveniently, IBM's strong presence in the law enforcement space, as one of the largest providers of digital profiling technologies and AI policing systems in the world, may also help with any obstacles Moderna may face among vaccine-hesitant populations."

When you look at the big picture, IBM is the best and worst candidate for the job of creating vaccine passports. It has a history of enabling genocide by misusing census data (which was its original business) and creating technologies to identify, track and capture individuals based on specific parameters such as bloodlines and religious affiliation.

They also used their technology to identify areas of food production where Jews lived in order to starve them, and now they're planning to leverage theirBlockchain Transparent Supply and Food Trust services that shares food sourcing and supply-chain data, and its Blockchain World Wire cross-border payment processing service. How might all of that be misused?

Only through exposing and examining what really occurred can the world of technology finally adopt the well-worn motto: Never Again. ~ Edwin Black

To get an idea, simply look at the services they rendered Nazi Germany. When you dissect IBM's history and compare it to its current role in the COVID-19 pandemic, it's virtually impossible to not reach the conclusion that they're perfectly equipped to carry out a flawless repeat of the Holocaust, but at an unimaginable scale, and with unfathomable efficiency.

The only difference is they would not be helping to hunt a specific national, religious or racial profile. To start, they'll hunt down vaccine dissenters. After that, there's no telling what the target group might be. But whatever it is, they'll be able to identify and track them down with near-effortless ease.

As noted by Black in the introduction to his book, "Only through exposing and examining what really occurred can the world of technology finally adopt the well-worn motto: Never Again." We need to do that, and come to a global consensus that we're simply not going to allow a repeat of history.

One small bright-spot amid all this darkness is Gov. Ron DeSantis, who March 29, 2021, announced he will issue an executive order forbidding local governments and businesses from requiring vaccine certificates.

"It's completely unacceptable for either the government or the private sector to impose upon you the requirement that you show proof of vaccine to just simply participate in normal society," he said.

He's further calling on the state legislature to create a measure that will allow him to sign it into law. Hopefully, such laws will be put into place, and other states will follow suit.

IBM and Bill Gates

In case you are unaware, Bill Gates in the early '80s was responsible for providing IBM with the DOS operating system for its then-new personal computers, which heralded in the massive explosion of computer technology. I remember it quite well. I got my first IBM clone PC around 1985.

The reason why this is important is that eventually, computer hardware became a commodity and computer software became the source of most of the technology revenues. Gates' nefarious strategies eventually led him to become the richest man in the world. That mantle now shifts between Bezos and Musk.

However, the current market cap of IBM is $110 billion while the market cap of Microsoft is 10 times that at over $1 trillion. So, while IBM has a clearly sordid history going back to World War II, the likely more serious threat is Gates himself, who is largely responsible for engineering and profiting from this entire COVID wealth transfer play through his strategic partnering with the World Health Organization, as we have carefully articulated in previous articles.

It is interesting that IBM is repeating its egregious contribution to the extermination of millions of Jews in Germany, but that may pale to the likely unintended consequences of Gates' plans, which will probably far exceed the lives lost in Nazi Germany. We need to do everything we can to make sure he doesn't succeed.

Too harsh? Then I suggest you review Gary Barnett's recent article on Lew Rockwell, where he states:

"The extermination of societies through genocide and democide is achieved in many ways, from war, forced starvation, psychological destruction, mass imprisonment, and sterilization; from chemical agents, bombs, nuclear weapons, and now the killing will be due to 'vaccination.'

Surely I jest you say, but I do not, as the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world at the hands of the powerful is sought.

Some call it population control, some call it depopulation, but it is simply planned mass murder to benefit the agendas of the few. The tool being used to accomplish this goal is the untested, experimental, mind-altering, gene-changing, toxic poison called the Covid-19 'vaccine,' and it is the newest weapon of mass destruction.

Many are having horrible effects due to these injections, and many others are dying. Some are dying immediately after taking this shot, some are dying after a few hours or days, others after a few weeks, and the long-term effects at this point are virtually unknown. (In nearly every case the media denies the association.)

It is as if people are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to logic, as this falsely claimed affliction called COVID that supposedly has a survival rate of 99.98%, is being treated as a deadly pandemic, and the 'cure' recommended is a 'vaccine' that kills many more than the purposely created fake virus scam."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IBM Colluded With Hitler, Now Makes Vaccine Passports - Atlanta Business Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a March 28, 2021, interview with Fox News' Steve Hilton, former Clinton adviser and author Naomi Wolf warned that mandatory COVID-19 passports will spell the "end of human liberty in the West": "'Vaccine passport' sounds like a fine thing if you don't understand what those platforms can do," she said.

# data[].attributes.body
"People exchange details about themselves and their activities for services and products on the web or apps. Many are willing to accept the deals they are offered in return for sharing insight about their purchases, behaviors and social lives. At times, their personal information is collected by the government on the grounds that there are benefits to public safety and security." (Auxier & Rainie, 2019)

Americans are concerned about how much data is being collected about them, and many feel their information is less secure than it used to be (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).

A majority of the public believes much of their online activities are being tracked (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).

The majority of the public does not feel in control of the data collected about them (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).

Most Americans see more risks than benefits from personal data collection (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).

Almost all Americans have been asked to agree to privacy policies, but fewer actually read them (Auxier & Rainie, 2019).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In key ways, today's digitally networked society runs on quid pro quos: People exchange details about themselves and their activities for services and products on the web or apps. Many are willing to accept the deals they are offered in return for sharing insight about their purchases, behaviors and social lives. At times, their personal information is collected by government on the grounds that there are benefits to public safety and security.

A majority of Americans are concerned about this collection and use of their data, according to a new report from Pew Research Center.

Here are 10 key takeaways from the report:

Americans are concerned about how much data is being collected about them, and many feel their information is less secure than it used to be. The majority of Americans say they are at least somewhat concerned about how much data is collected about them by both companies (79%) and the government (64%). Additionally, seven-in-ten Americans say they feel their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago. This compares with just 6% who say they feel their information is more secure, and about one-quarter (24%) who feel it's about the same.

A majority of the public believes much of their online activities are being tracked. More Americans say they think that what they do online or on their cellphone is being tracked than believe their offline activities are tracked.

They are also more likely to believe companies track more of their activities (both online and off) than think that the government is collecting information on them. For example, the majority of Americans believe that all or most of what they do online and on their cellphone is being tracked by companies (72%), while just 47% think the same of the government. Smaller shares believe all or most of their offline activities (like where they go and who they talk to) are being tracked by companies (31%) and the government (24%).

Large shares of Americans do not think it is possible to go about daily life without corporate and government entities collecting data about them. About six-in-ten Americans believe it is not possible to go through daily life without having their data collected by companies (62%) or the government (63%). However, 38% of U.S. adults do believe it is possible to go untracked by companies in daily life, and 36% say the same about the government.

A majority of U.S. adults have heard at least a little about how companies and other organizations use their data to target them with ads. One way that companies and other organizations use data - like people's purchasing and credit histories, and their online browsing and search behaviors - is to build out user data profiles in order to serve them targeted ads, offer special deals or assess how risky people might be as customers. Some 77% of U.S. adults have heard at least a little bit about this concept, and, of those who have, 75% say they think all or most companies use this tactic to help understand their customers.

Very few Americans believe they understand what is being done with the data collected about them. Small shares of Americans say they understand a great deal about what is being done with the data collected about them by companies (6%) or the government (4%). By contrast, around eight-in-ten Americans (78%) say they understand very little or nothing about what the government does with the personal data it collects, compared with a smaller share - though still a majority - who say the same about company-collected data (59%).

Almost all Americans have been asked to agree to privacy policies, but fewer actually read them. Some 97% of U.S. adults have ever been asked to agree to company privacy policy, which includes 25% who say they are asked to do this almost daily. Yet only about 20% of Americans overall say they always (9%) or often (13%) read these policies before agreeing to them, and 36% say they never read them. Among those who say they ever read such policies, about one-in-five (22%) say they read privacy policies all the way through and that they are more likely to say they glance over these policies without reading them closely.

Most Americans see more risks than benefits from personal data collection. About eight-in-ten (81%) Americans say the potential risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to companies collecting data. When government collection of data is considered, 66% of adults agree. Americans don't feel they benefit personally from the data collection, either. Just 5% of adults say they benefit a great deal from the data companies collect about them, and 4% say the same about government's data collection.

Americans vary in their attitudes toward data-sharing in the pursuit of public good. Though many Americans don't think they benefit much from the collection of their data, and they find that the potential risks of this practice outweigh the benefits, there are some scenarios in which the public is more likely to accept the idea of data-sharing. In line with findings in a 2015 Center survey showing that some Americans are comfortable with trade-offs in sharing data, about half of U.S. adults (49%) say it is acceptable for the government to collect data about all Americans in order to assess potential terrorist threats. That compares with 31% who feel it is unacceptable to collect data about all Americans for that purpose. By contrast, just one-quarter say it is acceptable for smart speaker makers to share users' audio recordings with law enforcement to help with criminal investigations, versus 49% who find that unacceptable.

The majority of the public does not feel in control of the data collected about them. More than eight-in-ten (84%) of Americans say they feel very little or no control over the data collected about them by the government, and 81% say the same when company data collection is considered. Just 4% of U.S. adults say they have a great deal of control over data collected by the government, and 3% agree regarding companies' collection of information.

Americans say they have very little understanding of current data protection laws, and most are in favor of more government regulation. Just 3% of U.S. adults say they have "a lot" of understanding of the current laws and regulations in place to protect their data privacy, with 63% saying they understand very little or not at all.

However, the majority of Americans support more government regulation in this area. Some 75% of U.S. adults say there should be more government regulation of what companies can do with customers' personal information. These numbers echo figures from an earlier Pew Research Center phone survey from 2013, not based on the American Trends Panel, which found that 68% of internet users believed the current laws weren't good enough at protecting people's privacy online.

These findings come from a survey of 4,272 U.S. adults conducted on Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel between June 3 and 17, 2019. It has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 1.87 percentage points.
See full topline results and methodology. CORRECTION (Nov. 9, 2021): A previous version of this post contained a hyperlink to an inaccurate external website. The link has been removed. None of the study findings or conclusions are affected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Key takeaways on Americans' views about privacy, surveillance and data-sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A majority of Americans are concerned about digital collection and use of their data by both companies and the government.