In its report entitled "Building a North American Community: Report of an Independent Task Force Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations," Global elitists advocate the elimination of North American nation-state borders. In other words, wages across North America and indeed the world will equalize as migrants from Mexico and other countries freely cross what used to be the southern border.
According to Forbes magazine (ref. 1), Pedro Aspe, one of the task force co-chairs, is also co-chairman/director of Evercore Partners, is a member of the board of the Carnegie Foundation, and sits on the Advisory Board of Stanford University's Institute of International Studies and the Visiting Committee of the Department of Economics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
According to Carnegie (ref. 2), since 1996 he has advised in more than 200 transactions, including private equity placements, mergers and acquisitions, project financing, and municipal bonds. He has also held a number of positions with the Mexican government, including the Minister of Finance and Public Credit of Mexico from 1988 through 1994 (ref. 3) and Budget Minister from 1987 to 1988 (ref. 4). Perhaps no one is in a position to benefit more from such an open border policy than Mr. Aspe, as he and other globalists seek to drive down wages and raise revenue from privatized toll roads American taxpayers are forced to use.
In a section of the report entitled "What We Should do by 2010," the plan to bring in cheap labor and abandon the borders is clearly laid out:
By 2010, CFR want to "Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America."
Is CFR working in the best interest of the average American? Do you want Pedro Aspe to orchestrate mergers on your behalf and bring in busloads of Mexicans to take your job? Me neither.
For the full text of the report, please visit the link below:
http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
References:
1. http://people.forbes.com/profile/pedro-aspe/51991
2. http://www.carnegie.org/sub/about/p.aspe.html
3. http://www.evercore.com/userdetail/index.php?userid=1247
4. http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?author=265
Contact the author at rick.newbold@identityeducation.org
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
New Federal Law Targets ID Theft, Cybercrime
Brian Krebs on Computer Security
Washington Post
October 2008
President Bush last week signed into law a bill that seeks to make it easier for prosecutors to go after cybercrooks, while ensuring that identity theft victims are compensated for their time and trouble when convicted identity thieves are forced to cough up ill-gotten gains.
The Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 lowers the bar prosecutors need to clear before bringing hacking and other cybercrime charges against an individual. Under current federal cybercrime laws, prosecutors must show that the illegal activity caused at least $5,000 in damages before they can bring charges for unauthorized access to a computer. The new law eliminates that requirement.
The law makes it a felony, during any one-year period, to damage 10 or more protected computers used by or for the federal government or a financial institution, and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines and consider increasing the penalties for those convicted of identity theft, computer fraud, illegal wiretapping or breaking into computer systems.
The new law allows federal courts to prosecute when the cybercriminal and the victim live in the same state. Under current law, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the thief uses interstate communication to access the victim's PC. In addition, the law also expands the definition of cyber-extortion.
Identity theft victims could find it easier to win compensation for their trouble as a result of this law, assuming their attackers are brought to justice. The law requires that in cases where convicted identity thieves are ordered to pay restitution, the victim should get a chunk of that money "equal to the value of the time reasonably spent by the victim in an attempt to remediate the intended or actual harm incurred by the victim from the offense."
Some ID theft victims can spend thousands of dollars and months or years dealing with credit bureaus and debtors from accounts fraudulently opened in their names, but the law doesn't appear to take into account lost opportunities associated with identity theft. According to the Federal Trade Commission, some consumers victimized by identity theft may lose out on job opportunities or be denied loans for education, housing or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. In rare cases, they may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.
Washington Post
October 2008
President Bush last week signed into law a bill that seeks to make it easier for prosecutors to go after cybercrooks, while ensuring that identity theft victims are compensated for their time and trouble when convicted identity thieves are forced to cough up ill-gotten gains.
The Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act of 2008 lowers the bar prosecutors need to clear before bringing hacking and other cybercrime charges against an individual. Under current federal cybercrime laws, prosecutors must show that the illegal activity caused at least $5,000 in damages before they can bring charges for unauthorized access to a computer. The new law eliminates that requirement.
The law makes it a felony, during any one-year period, to damage 10 or more protected computers used by or for the federal government or a financial institution, and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines and consider increasing the penalties for those convicted of identity theft, computer fraud, illegal wiretapping or breaking into computer systems.
The new law allows federal courts to prosecute when the cybercriminal and the victim live in the same state. Under current law, federal courts only have jurisdiction if the thief uses interstate communication to access the victim's PC. In addition, the law also expands the definition of cyber-extortion.
Identity theft victims could find it easier to win compensation for their trouble as a result of this law, assuming their attackers are brought to justice. The law requires that in cases where convicted identity thieves are ordered to pay restitution, the victim should get a chunk of that money "equal to the value of the time reasonably spent by the victim in an attempt to remediate the intended or actual harm incurred by the victim from the offense."
Some ID theft victims can spend thousands of dollars and months or years dealing with credit bureaus and debtors from accounts fraudulently opened in their names, but the law doesn't appear to take into account lost opportunities associated with identity theft. According to the Federal Trade Commission, some consumers victimized by identity theft may lose out on job opportunities or be denied loans for education, housing or cars because of negative information on their credit reports. In rare cases, they may even be arrested for crimes they did not commit.
Graduate Schools Consult Facebook
By Reilly Kiernan
Senior Writer
Published: Friday, September 26th, 2008
Calling all seniors: It may be time to clean up your facebook.com profiles. According to a survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep between June and August, 15 percent of law school admissions officers and 10 percent of undergraduate admissions officers have “personally visited personal networking sites to help [them] evaluate an applicant.”
One hundred and fifty-two law schools and 320 of the top 500 colleges participated in the survey, though Princeton did not.
Kaplan annually surveys law schools, medical schools, business schools and undergraduate programs, “all for the purposes of getting information for students and applicants who come to use to give them the up-to-date landscape for admissions,” Glen Stohr, admissions and pre-law director at Kaplan, said in an interview.
Use of social networking sites by admissions officers has risen so dramatically in recent years that 17 percent of law schools are in the process of formulating a policy about how to deal with the use of personal networking sites in the admission process, Stohr explained.
“I think this is sort of a Wild Wild West time for admission officers,” Stohr said.
Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said that the University does not have a specific policy on searching social networking sites.
“If something were brought to our attention, we would of course check it out, but given that we have 21,000 applications, we are not scouring Facebook,” Rapelye said.
“If there were any reason for us to doubt the character of a student because of what they put on their Facebook page, we would take that into consideration,” she added.
The survey found that law school admissions officers are the most likely to search social networking websites.
“Law schools, unlike medical schools or business schools, very rarely do face-to-face interviews,” Stohr said, adding that profiles give law schools a chance to assess applicants’ characters.
“[Law schools] are probably under the greatest pressure to say ‘this is a person of character,’ ” Stohr noted, explaining that the character and fitness of law school graduates will be carefully evaluated by bar associations.
Using discretion
Fifty-two percent of the admissions officers who responded that they had visited personal networking sites reported that their visit had a negative impact on the applicant’s chances.
Though many students believe that photos are the greatest danger to their application success, Stohr explained that wall posts may be much more damaging.
“Many people ... think it will be a picture of me drinking at a party,” he explained. “I think what is far more likely to hurt your chances is having a discussion on your wall about your [graduate school] applications.”
In fact, photos of parties and drinks may not necessarily cause a problem, Stohr said, explaining that he believes “that admission officers know that college kids are college kids.”
Wall posts or discussions that reveal damaging information, on the other hand, such as academic problems or past legal history, could be fatal to a graduate school application, Stohr explained.
“What you put on a social networking site ... [is] not very likely to get you into law school, but it could keep you out,” Stohr said.
Laurie Frey ’09, who is applying to law school, said she believes the use of Facebook by admissions officers “a bit like an invasion of privacy,” but added that she has made an effort to keep her profile “clean.”
“Really, you have to know that kind of thing is possible when you sign up for any kind of networking site, so it is your responsibility to only put up things you would be ok with an admissions office seeing,” Frey said.
Rapelye urged similar caution. “Students who are in the application process should be mindful of what they make public,” she said.
Though it is easy to get caught up in the privacy fixation, Stohr said that the thing that gets you into law school is still great grades, great scores and great personal statements.
“Seventy percent of those admissions officers said [the] LSAT is their number one criteria, and GPA is second,” Stohr said. Still, Stohr recommends that students play it safe.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/26/21548/
Senior Writer
Published: Friday, September 26th, 2008
Calling all seniors: It may be time to clean up your facebook.com profiles. According to a survey conducted by Kaplan Test Prep between June and August, 15 percent of law school admissions officers and 10 percent of undergraduate admissions officers have “personally visited personal networking sites to help [them] evaluate an applicant.”
One hundred and fifty-two law schools and 320 of the top 500 colleges participated in the survey, though Princeton did not.
Kaplan annually surveys law schools, medical schools, business schools and undergraduate programs, “all for the purposes of getting information for students and applicants who come to use to give them the up-to-date landscape for admissions,” Glen Stohr, admissions and pre-law director at Kaplan, said in an interview.
Use of social networking sites by admissions officers has risen so dramatically in recent years that 17 percent of law schools are in the process of formulating a policy about how to deal with the use of personal networking sites in the admission process, Stohr explained.
“I think this is sort of a Wild Wild West time for admission officers,” Stohr said.
Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye said that the University does not have a specific policy on searching social networking sites.
“If something were brought to our attention, we would of course check it out, but given that we have 21,000 applications, we are not scouring Facebook,” Rapelye said.
“If there were any reason for us to doubt the character of a student because of what they put on their Facebook page, we would take that into consideration,” she added.
The survey found that law school admissions officers are the most likely to search social networking websites.
“Law schools, unlike medical schools or business schools, very rarely do face-to-face interviews,” Stohr said, adding that profiles give law schools a chance to assess applicants’ characters.
“[Law schools] are probably under the greatest pressure to say ‘this is a person of character,’ ” Stohr noted, explaining that the character and fitness of law school graduates will be carefully evaluated by bar associations.
Using discretion
Fifty-two percent of the admissions officers who responded that they had visited personal networking sites reported that their visit had a negative impact on the applicant’s chances.
Though many students believe that photos are the greatest danger to their application success, Stohr explained that wall posts may be much more damaging.
“Many people ... think it will be a picture of me drinking at a party,” he explained. “I think what is far more likely to hurt your chances is having a discussion on your wall about your [graduate school] applications.”
In fact, photos of parties and drinks may not necessarily cause a problem, Stohr said, explaining that he believes “that admission officers know that college kids are college kids.”
Wall posts or discussions that reveal damaging information, on the other hand, such as academic problems or past legal history, could be fatal to a graduate school application, Stohr explained.
“What you put on a social networking site ... [is] not very likely to get you into law school, but it could keep you out,” Stohr said.
Laurie Frey ’09, who is applying to law school, said she believes the use of Facebook by admissions officers “a bit like an invasion of privacy,” but added that she has made an effort to keep her profile “clean.”
“Really, you have to know that kind of thing is possible when you sign up for any kind of networking site, so it is your responsibility to only put up things you would be ok with an admissions office seeing,” Frey said.
Rapelye urged similar caution. “Students who are in the application process should be mindful of what they make public,” she said.
Though it is easy to get caught up in the privacy fixation, Stohr said that the thing that gets you into law school is still great grades, great scores and great personal statements.
“Seventy percent of those admissions officers said [the] LSAT is their number one criteria, and GPA is second,” Stohr said. Still, Stohr recommends that students play it safe.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/26/21548/
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Privacy is a Thing of the Past
October 10, 2008 (Computerworld) In his 25 years in business, Steven Rambam has worked on some high-profile cases, including tracking down Nazi war criminals in Canada. He also owns PallTech, an investigative database service with more than 25 billion records on U.S. citizens and businesses.
What do you do as a private investigator?
We are not the traditional Rockford or Magnum, P.I. type of investigator. We'll do very difficult missing persons cases, a lot of sophisticated financial fraud work, a lot of insurance company work, a lot of disappearances.
What's in your PallTech databases?
We have pretty much every American's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, telephone number, personal relationships, businesses, motor vehicles, driver's licenses, bankruptcies, liens, judgments -- I could go on and on.
Who has access to your data?
This is a database that's restricted to law enforcement, private investigators, security directors of companies and people who have a genuine need.
How do you safeguard it?
The most restrictive rule is my own personal ethics. In 20 years, we haven't had a single lawsuit or complaint.
What has changed in the past few decades?
Two things. The first is computing power. I have in my office storage and databases and artificial intelligence scripts and behind-the-scenes links that are far more powerful and comprehensive than J. Edgar Hoover's wildest dreams.
Favorite technology: "E-mail with attachments. I don't think I've turned on my fax machine in years."
If he wasn't in this business, he'd probably be: A reporter.
Number of times he's been shot at on the job: "It's bad karma to count."
Favorite nonwork pastime: Anything on or near the water.
Philosophy in a nutshell: Do the right thing, no matter the personal cost.
Favorite vice: "I'm not going to tell you. I can assure you that it's not chocolate."
Favorite movie: "Ruggles of Red Gap, about a butler who is gambled away by a British lord and relocates with his new master to Montana. It's the most patriotically positive movie ever made about America."
The other thing is the mind-boggling level of self-contributed data. The average person now willingly puts on the Internet personal information about himself that 20 years ago people would hire an investigator to try and get. It's extraordinary. If you know how to use the Internet, 75% of an investigation can be conducted sitting in your pajamas.
Do you see this as a bad thing?
On the contrary, there are good reasons for most of this to be out there. It's not out there because these are nefarious, evil people trying to be the new Big Brother. It's because this is truly a new engine of capitalism. Where it gets a little creepy is when they aggregate all of this data together and have an extraordinary profile of you.
How can businesses protect their intellectual capital, particularly when it's in electronic form?
You can have five firewalls in a safe room with the most current locks monitored by 24/7 motion-detecting, IP-addressable cameras, and all of that is meaningless if a 16-year-old kid can social-engineer a root password out of you. The downside to all of this publicly available information is that it's now a lot easier to social-engineer somebody.
Should businesses hire a company like yours?
They should if they don't want a back door or a Trojan [horse] on their system. A year ago, a company called me from Hong Kong and said, "We're being extorted. We're getting e-mails from an individual saying if we don't give a series of payments through PayPal, he is going to take [our] source code and post it on the Internet."
We were able to determine who the guy was in 24 hours. He was a 14-year-old kid in California.
What about smear campaigns on the Web? If you're a victim, what should you do about it?
You have to have zero tolerance. You have to find out who the person is, and you have to sue them within an inch of their life, and you have to do it publicly and post it on your Web site, talking about the entire case from beginning to end.
Government databases are the biggest repository of private information. Should the public be concerned about that?
The scary thing to me is not that information is open, but that the government is trying to use every pretext and every trick to hide information from its citizens. That I think is much more nefarious and will be much more detrimental in the long run than having information out there.
Some of the things the Bush administration is doing are just incomprehensible. For example, they're reclassifying data that's been in the public eye -- that has been available to the public since 1991. Why, I can't begin to guess.
Privacy is dead. Get over it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Another slippery, slimy thing is that the FBI has signed contracts with some private data providers. Polygraphs [and] background investigations are being outsourced, and the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. If you say to the FBI, "I want the report that ChoicePoint furnished to you about me," they say to you, "Sorry, we can't give that to you. That's a private business record." This is really a fairly sinister development. And it's one that's profoundly un-American.
Given the amount of personal information out there and the fact that you aggregate it, does the public have reason to fear the misuse of personal data controlled by PallTech or other aggregators?
No, because frankly, we are more accountable than the U.S. government. You can sue us; you can subpoena us. You can hold us to task if we do something improper. Not so the U.S. government.
What do you do as a private investigator?
We are not the traditional Rockford or Magnum, P.I. type of investigator. We'll do very difficult missing persons cases, a lot of sophisticated financial fraud work, a lot of insurance company work, a lot of disappearances.
What's in your PallTech databases?
We have pretty much every American's name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, telephone number, personal relationships, businesses, motor vehicles, driver's licenses, bankruptcies, liens, judgments -- I could go on and on.
Who has access to your data?
This is a database that's restricted to law enforcement, private investigators, security directors of companies and people who have a genuine need.
How do you safeguard it?
The most restrictive rule is my own personal ethics. In 20 years, we haven't had a single lawsuit or complaint.
What has changed in the past few decades?
Two things. The first is computing power. I have in my office storage and databases and artificial intelligence scripts and behind-the-scenes links that are far more powerful and comprehensive than J. Edgar Hoover's wildest dreams.
Favorite technology: "E-mail with attachments. I don't think I've turned on my fax machine in years."
If he wasn't in this business, he'd probably be: A reporter.
Number of times he's been shot at on the job: "It's bad karma to count."
Favorite nonwork pastime: Anything on or near the water.
Philosophy in a nutshell: Do the right thing, no matter the personal cost.
Favorite vice: "I'm not going to tell you. I can assure you that it's not chocolate."
Favorite movie: "Ruggles of Red Gap, about a butler who is gambled away by a British lord and relocates with his new master to Montana. It's the most patriotically positive movie ever made about America."
The other thing is the mind-boggling level of self-contributed data. The average person now willingly puts on the Internet personal information about himself that 20 years ago people would hire an investigator to try and get. It's extraordinary. If you know how to use the Internet, 75% of an investigation can be conducted sitting in your pajamas.
Do you see this as a bad thing?
On the contrary, there are good reasons for most of this to be out there. It's not out there because these are nefarious, evil people trying to be the new Big Brother. It's because this is truly a new engine of capitalism. Where it gets a little creepy is when they aggregate all of this data together and have an extraordinary profile of you.
How can businesses protect their intellectual capital, particularly when it's in electronic form?
You can have five firewalls in a safe room with the most current locks monitored by 24/7 motion-detecting, IP-addressable cameras, and all of that is meaningless if a 16-year-old kid can social-engineer a root password out of you. The downside to all of this publicly available information is that it's now a lot easier to social-engineer somebody.
Should businesses hire a company like yours?
They should if they don't want a back door or a Trojan [horse] on their system. A year ago, a company called me from Hong Kong and said, "We're being extorted. We're getting e-mails from an individual saying if we don't give a series of payments through PayPal, he is going to take [our] source code and post it on the Internet."
We were able to determine who the guy was in 24 hours. He was a 14-year-old kid in California.
What about smear campaigns on the Web? If you're a victim, what should you do about it?
You have to have zero tolerance. You have to find out who the person is, and you have to sue them within an inch of their life, and you have to do it publicly and post it on your Web site, talking about the entire case from beginning to end.
Government databases are the biggest repository of private information. Should the public be concerned about that?
The scary thing to me is not that information is open, but that the government is trying to use every pretext and every trick to hide information from its citizens. That I think is much more nefarious and will be much more detrimental in the long run than having information out there.
Some of the things the Bush administration is doing are just incomprehensible. For example, they're reclassifying data that's been in the public eye -- that has been available to the public since 1991. Why, I can't begin to guess.
Privacy is dead. Get over it. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Another slippery, slimy thing is that the FBI has signed contracts with some private data providers. Polygraphs [and] background investigations are being outsourced, and the Freedom of Information Act does not apply. If you say to the FBI, "I want the report that ChoicePoint furnished to you about me," they say to you, "Sorry, we can't give that to you. That's a private business record." This is really a fairly sinister development. And it's one that's profoundly un-American.
Given the amount of personal information out there and the fact that you aggregate it, does the public have reason to fear the misuse of personal data controlled by PallTech or other aggregators?
No, because frankly, we are more accountable than the U.S. government. You can sue us; you can subpoena us. You can hold us to task if we do something improper. Not so the U.S. government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)