e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"
Facebook’s "Dark Profiles" acquiring all the world’s personal data, voraciously
USPTO Officer (former employee of Facebook attorney White & Case LLP) admits secret "alias" email accounts
None of these secret emails have been produced in Leader v. Facebook FOIA requests
(Nov. 3, 2013 Update)—AFI investigators uncovered yesterday a 2012 Patent Office directive, issued by Kathryn W. Siehndel (CLICK HERE), FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Officer, instructing employees not use the intellectual property of third parties (like Leader Technologies’) without permission.
Only Facebook's attorneys would make this claim. This is more strong evidence that Facebook's attorneys are colluding with the Administration.
Facebook was judged to be in "literal infringement" of Leader's patent on 11 of 11 claims. This is the highest form of patent infringement. See: "How HealthCare.gov uses third-party websites and applications" (captured from the Obamacare website at 09:42 AM EST, Nov. 04, 2013).[10]
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Buying off federal judges to get your way is a crime.
By the time of the Siehndel memorandum, Patent Office Director, David J. Kappos, had already posted on his USPTO Facebook Page 300 times (CLICK HERE)—without asking Leader Technologies for permission to use their intellectual property. Kappos' impropriety occurred while his office was in the middle of processing Facebook's request for reexamination of Leader's patent.
Did the White House order the U.S. Patent Office to steal Leader's technology to support re-election, OBamacare & banker Buds like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan?
Equally troubling, Siehndel admits that USPTO personnel have secret “alias” accounts (p. 15) (CLICK HERE), yet she has not produced a single copy of these messages in any Leader v. Facebook FOIA inquiry. While the directive looks innocent enough on the surface (its for security and privacy), observers of the Facebook Club now know that this is their blanket excuse for all abuses of security and privacy.
Siehndel is the Patent Office FOIA Officer who has failed to disclose her conflict of interest ties to Facebook's attorneys in Leader v. Facebook, and who is stonewalling current FOIA inquiries (see below).
Technologists know that "alias" email message handling is a playground for the unscrupulous to mask misconduct in a blizzard of technospeak acronyms like SMTP, SRS, NDN, RCPT and SPF. All that laypeople really need to know here is that while the destination of an "alias" email could be one's inbox, it could just as easily be forwarded to a secret Gmail, Yahoo or Facebook account.
This practice opened the USPTO system up to mischief and concealment of collusion. If caught, Siehndel and her Facebook Club will cite this policy as "full disclosure" of their practices. Count on it. These lawyers have fabricated an excuse for every unethical deed they do. Just observe their tap dancing on President Obama's "you can keep your plan" promise. Their Leader v. Facebook conduct is more of the same confiscation of public trust and property.
Confiscation of personal property; abuse of trust
Indeed, the millions of cancelled healthcare plans are just as much a citizen's personal property as Leader Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for social networking. In fact, the two are combined now that the Obamacare website is relying on Facebook links—Leader Technologies' invention and property.
In like manner, each American who has just had his or her healthcare cancelled spent time, energy and resources (their intellectual property) to acquire their plan—a plan their President promised dozens if not hundreds of times they could keep.
FIRST UPDATE
Complaint against Patent Office Filed with Inspector General
Executive Branch confiscated Leader Technologies' invention to publish USPTO director newsletter—while pretending impartiality & making false insurance promises
(Nov. 1, 2013 Update)—Department of Commerce Inspector General, Todd J. Zinser, received a new complaint today against the Obama Administration's abuse of private property.
The complaint (CLICK HERE)[08] alleges that Obama's political appointee, Patent Office Director, David J. Kappos, confiscated the social networking patent of Columbus, Ohio-based innovator, Leader Technologies, Inc., for his personal newsletter to 10,000+ Patent Office employees. Kappos set up his Facebook page during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings. This conduct violates common sense and the Executive Branch's "Standards of Ethical Conduct" on fairness and impartiality. Inventors must be able to rely upon an impartial Patent Office. "That trust was resoundingly abused in our case," said a Leader spokesperson.
Pres. Obama made this promise: Oct-2008 (1x), Jun-2009 (3x), Jul-2009 (4x), Aug-2009 (6x), Jan-2010 (1x), Mar-2010 (6x), Apr-2010 (1x), Sep-2010 (1x).
Timing-wise, Kappos posted to his Facebook Page 302 times between May 2010 and Nov. 2012 (www.facebook.com/uspto.gov). By May 2010 President Obama had already made 22 of 23 assurances to Americans that "you can keep your current insurance," according to New York Magazine.[09] Likewise, Barack Obama carried 114 links on his Facebook Page to his political organization, Organizing for Action, between 2007 and today (www.facebook.com/barackobama).
confiscation of property and rights by a government is illegal
In short, this Administration relied on confiscated social networking property invented by Columbus-based innovator, Leader Technologies, to promote its political agenda. That agenda included confiscation of the rights of Americans to keep their health insurers.
ORIGINAL POST
(Oct. 28, 2013)—In 2012, Mark Zuckerberg’s former speech writer, Katherine Losse, revealed in her book The Boy Kings, that since 2006 Facebook has had a feature called "Dark Profiles," which creates secret accounts for people who have never signed up.[01]
This means that if your picture is ever tagged with your name, a secret, "dark" data gathering account about you is created—one that you did not authorize and will never see. Then, every time your name is mentioned anywhere in the world, or your picture appears anywhere, that data will be immediately associated with your Dark Profile. Creepy, but true. A Congressional Briefing was published after Losse's book was published.
It may be legal, but is it moral? – When "legal" is toxic
The Facebook Club lawyers are practicing a KGB/Moscow-developed tactic called "lawfare." The Soviets developed the technique to undermine Western democracies during the Cold War. Now that research has been repurposed. These unscrupulous lawyers have assured the Facebook executives that all this is perfectly "legal" since all 1 billion users on Facebook gave up their privacy rights when they signed on. Legal? Maybe. Moral? Surely not. This is a good example of why lawyers cannot be given power to run governments. Their fungible ethics will eventually drag a society over the cliff's edge.
What you don’t know can hurt you
Are you tempted to think, so what, how can my Facebook data hurt me? Think again. President Obama currently has over 47 million "likes" on Facebook.The improper way that he obtained this disproportionately high number aside, elections can be manipulated with these Dark Profiles, since there are only 1 billion Facebook users, but 7.1 billion people in the world.[06]
What others write about you, and who tries to friend you, is a gold mine for demographers who extrapolate intimate details about your life, including your voting preferences. These secret profiles can predict how you’ll vote, and what your hot buttons are, with surprising accuracy.
If you are a fence sitter, that's when you’ll get a personal visit from an Obama for America local organizer. That person will already know your issues, and will have an information kit customized just for you. If there are enough of you in a single voting bloc, say left-handed Californians, don’t be surprised if an Executive Order favoring left-handed Californians suddenly appears. President Obama only beat Mitt Romney by 5 million votes. So, these "Dark Profile" fence sitters are enough to swing an election.
Since that data was not equally available to the opposition, use of this data about you amounts to election manipulation. The fact that so many foreigners are associated with Facebook amounts to foreign influence on U.S. elections, which is illegal. This undue influence hurts every American. Ditto for the sovereign elections in Germany, France or any other country.
The Facebook Club is creating Big Brother on steroids
Now, add your healthcare (Obamacare), financial (Wall Street), telephone and online data (NSA) to your Dark Profile, and you have the ultimate Big Brother file on every person on the planet. What do you think Facebook is storing in its new Swedish data center—outside the reach of US law?[2] Ask yourself why not a single investigator from the mainstream media has doggedly investigated Facebook executives to get to the bottom of their theft of intellectual properties from Leader Technologies and others, their repeated breaches of security and their now ubiquitous intrusions on people's privacy expectations. Is it because the mainstream media is drunk on the Facebook ad revenue Kool-Aid?
The Facebook Club is consolidating power, as we speak
Is it any wonder why the Facebook Club is currently pulling out all the stops to achieve their data gathering objectives, before their agenda is exposed? We believe this hidden agenda explains why the pundits who are not part of the Facebook Club are currently shaking their heads and asking what is going on. In fact, Bob Woodward in yesterday's Face the Nation interview with Bob Shieffer expressed his alarm at the out-of-control "secret government" being exposed by the NSA snooping.[03]
Bob Woodward’s "Secret Government" = The Facebook Club
We believe that the privacy laws in Europe are proving to be a stumbling block to the Facebook Club's agenda. Enter the NSA. If, for example, the Facebook Club can learn what Angela Merkel's cyber policy plans are, then they can stay several steps ahead of her with the goal of fully incorporating the German and French economies into their global financial and electioneering plans.
Leader v. Facebook revealed that American justice checks and balances are broken
The revelations of the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal have exposed intimate, cross-fertilized relationships among a gaggle of Washington, New York and Silicon Valley law firms, Wall Street, the Justice Branch, the Executive Branch, telecommunications and mainstream media.[5] The checks and balances firewall that traditionally separated these groups has crumbled. The schemes appear to have hatched at Harvard in the late 1980's. Who better than a gaggle of narcissistic Harvard Law graduates to break the U.S. Constitution using their inside knowledge? John Adams is surely praying for their souls right now.
We recommend to the Europeans that they not focus on Obama per se, but rather on Obama's handlers – the Facebook Club. Obama is only a pawn on the chessboard.
Europe: Focus on The Facebook Club for motive & hidden agenda
We suggest that Europeans focus on Lawrence "Larry" Summers, James W. Breyer, John P. Breyer, Thomas G. Hungar, Gordon K. Davidson, Theodore B. Olson, George Soros, Alisher Usmanov, Sheryl Sandberg, Yuri Milner, Accel Partners LLP, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Donald K. Stern, Thomas J. Kim, Preetinder "Preet" Bharara, David J. Kappos, Robert F. Bauer, Anita B. Dunn, Eric H. Holder, Toni Townes-Whitley, World Bank, IMF, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and the gaggle of law firms, and their in-tow federal judges and bar associations; law firms named Gibson Dunn, Cooley-Godward-McBee Strategic, White & Case, Blank & Rome, Fenwick & West, Orrick Herrington, Weil Gotshal, Latham & Watkins, Sullivan & Cromwell and Perkins Coie.
The Facebook Club is almost exclusively lawyers. Lawyers are skilled at manipulating the levers of power, but are woefully inadequate at administrating power. We believe lawyers have an inherent conflict of interest in holding office and running bureaucracies while they hold an active law license. They are effectively playing on both sides of the ball. In any other profession such conflicts would not be permitted. Attorneys have bored their way into the woodwork of American democracy like borer beetles.
On July 29, 2013 Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 counts of stealing Leader Technologies' social networking invention. but the federal judges, incl. the Chief Justice, protected their personal pre-IPO investments in Facebook, instead of judging rightly.
Why hasn't an independent press exposed this fraud?
The Obamacare design document is between 10,000 and 33,000 pages depending upon who's counting
If you doubt that the current leadership crisis in Washington DC is attorney-fabricated, just look at Obamacare. It is currently between 10,000 and 33,000 pages.[04] That's a lot of legal fees (good for lawyers) and a non-implementable instruction manual (bad for U.S. citizens).
Engineers doubt that the Obamacare site can be fixed in a few weeks, as we are currently promised, because the wrong people are driving the bus.
"Tech surge" is a silly engineering notion
America needs engineers and problem solvers, not more lawyers concocting silly notions like a "tech surge." In programming, more is generally not better. In fact, more is generally bad when one is building the first version of a program. Developers know that perhaps 20 qualified engineers is optimal to build an initial operating environment. Too many cooks spoil the broth in software research and development. Therefore, while the notion of a "tech surge" may mollify the masses, it is a silly engineering notion.
Fig. 6—The Facebook Club has created Dark Profiles to collect data on every person on the planet, then feed those profiles with "inadvertent" data breaches from Verizon, IRS, NSA, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, AT&T, IBM, Google, etc. etc. etc. – all "mistakes that won't happen again." (Once they've happened once, the damage is done.) Graphic: http://www.helago-cz.cz/ke-stazeni/If the R&D were run properly by engineers and designers instead of lawyers, no "tech surge" would be needed now. It is evident that this supposed surge is nothing more than a smokescreen to get more Facebook Club programmers involved building Facebook Club data siphons and backdoors. Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." What better excuse than a "tech surge" to inject your people into an otherwise closed programmer pool?
Obamacare website fiasco: more misdirection by the Facebook Club
Such mismanagement had to be intentional. Even first year project management students would have done a better job. One must work to screw up the website implementation this badly. NASDAQ also had similar "gliches" when the Facebook IPO began trading. Curiously, all the Facebook insiders cashed out under that smokescreen to the tune of $6+ billion. The hidden agenda of the Facebook Club must be exposed and stopped before the personal information of everyone on the planet is consolidated in their unelected, private hands.
Don’t sacrifice your property, privacy and security on the Facebook Club altar. "Free" is never free.
* * *
Footnotes:
[01] Facebook Dark Profiles: Ramkumar Iyer. (Jun. 29, 2012). Facebook developed ‘Stalker, Dark Profiles’ says ex-employee in new book. First Post.
[02] Facebook Swedish Data Center: Ashlee Vance. (Oct. 04, 2013). Inside the Arctic Circle, Where Your Facebook Data Lives. BusinessWeek.
[03] Bob Woodward "secret government:" Bob Woodward. (Oct. 27, 2013). The Secret NSA/C.I.A. Government. YouTube. Face The Nation. MP4.
[04] 10,000 to 33,000 page Obamacare design specification: Glenn Kessler. (May 15, 2013). How many pages of regulations for 'Obamacare'? The Washington Post.
[05] Leader v. Facebook courts ignored law; held Facebook investments. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2012) HTML.
[06] How did 47 million Obama FB "likes" appear? "U.S. Politics Must Quit Facebook – Facebook agenda is a clear and present danger to American democracy." Americans For Innovation, Sep. 17, 2013 http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-politics-must-quit-facebook.html
[07] Mark Zuckerberg's "I built Facebook in 'one to two' weeks" testimony. Mark Zuckerberg Deposition, Apr. 25, 2006, ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg et al, 04-cv-11923-DPW (D.Mass. 2004) <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/zuckerberg/2006-04-25-Mark-Zuckerberg-Deposition-Apr-25-2006-ConnectU-LLC-v-Zuckerberg-et-al-1-04-cv-11923-DPW-D-Mass-2004.pdf>.
[08] Inspector General Complaint. Dept. of Commerce COMPLAINT to the Inspector General against the U.S. Patent Office, incl. former Director David J. Kappos; Judges Stephen C. Siu, Allen r. MacDonald, Meredith C. Petravick; and FOIA Officer Kathryn W. Siehndel, Oct. 31, 2013 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/foia/2013-12-09-USPTO-CORRUPTION-COMPLAINT-TO-COMMERCE-INSPECTOR-GENERAL-Supplement-Dec-9-2013.pdf>.
[09] Pres. Obama's Healthcare Promises. ''Video: President Obama Promising That You Can Keep Your Health-Care Plan, Again and Again'' by Dan Amira. New York Magazine, Oct. 29, 2013 <http://videos.nymag.com/video/If-You-Like-Your-Plan-Supercut>.
[10] Obamacare makes false, Facebook Club "open source" intellectual property claims. ''How HealthCare.gov uses third-party websites and applications.'' HealthCare.gov Privacy Policy, Nov. 4, 2013, 09:42 AM'' <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/obamacare/HealthCare.GOV-Privacy-Policy-Nov-4-2013.pdf#page=5>.
Why does this blog continue to repeat the same lie over and over and over?
ReplyDelete"On July 29, 2013 Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 counts of stealing Leader Technologies' social networking invention."
Absolutely. Completely. False. First, the leader trial was a civil trial. There is absolutely no concept of "guilty" in a civil trial.
But more fundamentally, leader sued for patent infringement and patent infringement only. This has nothing to do with theft. Consider the epic patent war involving Eli Whitney and the cotton gin over 150 years ago. Lyon, completely separately and independently, developed a gin that infringed on Whitney's patent. No theft. No copying. But he was "guilty" of patent infringement because his gin operated in the same way that Whitney's patented gin did. THAT is the difference.
If Leaders code was actually stolen, they would have at least tried to sue for trade secret misappropriation , copyright infringement, outright theft, etc. They didn't, because the company knew very well that this wild fantasy this blog has now constructed never took place. It's a very simple concept.
I just don't know what else I or anyone else can do to educate this blog. I'm sorry but I have truly tried.
How many billable hours did you burn concocting this? Priceless.
DeleteYou are again arguing form over substance. That's all you've ever done in this case because the facts condemn.
Comparing this circumstance to Eli Whitney, Lyon and the cotton gin is apples and oranges and laughable. In that case, both men actually invented something similar, independently. Facebook on the other hand lost in court on this subject of prior art. They could not prove that Zuckerberg or anyone else had independently invented the same thing, Facebook lawyers did no produce a single line of Facebook's code as proof of your premise, despite their call for such information to hackers worldwide. So, your cotton gin analogy is stillborn.
The fact is, Zuckerberg is a self-confessed hacker who never invented anything in his life. He was a 19-year old wet-behind-the-ears Harvard sophomore who jumped into bed with the PayPal Mafia, supported by Larry Summers. That is why your Thomas G. Hungar and Gibson Dunn LLP, ?Crooks-in-Chief?, are working so hard to hide his 28 hard drives and Harvard emails after Facebook's experts admitted their existence to Paul Ceglia's attorney Dean Boland in 2012. Whoops. The cat is out of the bag.
Hear the dogs?
Jill wrote: "I just don't know what else I or anyone else can do to educate this blog. I'm sorry but I have truly tried." No "Jill Amblin" has ever posted on this site until Monday. My, my, "Jill" gets frustrated quickly. Shielding that den of thieves from their day of reckoning must be a great burden.
Delete[the sound of growling dogs grows nearer]
I would have to respectfully disagree I have followed this blog for a year, and Donnas blog prior to that. There has never been a shred of evidence presented that Facebook withheld any evidence at trial. Conjecture? Tons. Actual evidence? None.
ReplyDeleteLikewise on the argument that Facebook copied anything. There has simply never been any evidence in the slightest that supports this argument. And certainly not at trial.
So at the end of the day, I cannot understand the argument that the facts "condemn" Facebook. It's actually the exact opposite!
And let me clarify. If Facebook had claimed that hard drives and emails were lost, you would have seen a motion to compel by Leader. I have reviewed the docket and no motion was ever filed. That absolutely kills the arguments of this blog in its tracks. At a minimum, if Facebook claimed that it didn't have certain evidence, there would be discovery responses that said they didn't have certain evidence. Again, none of this very fundamental evidence has ever been provided by this blog or Donna's. The claim that Facebook withheld evidence is just fantasy.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for the "theft" claim. This blog, nor Donna's, has never posted a shred of evidence to support the claim that Facebook actually copied or stole leader's code. Show us one sentence from the trial or discovery that establishes, or even suggests, this inference. It doesn't exist.
I don't work for Facebook. I don't represent Facebook. But you can't just throw out wild conspiracy theory after wild conspiracy theory without evidence to back it up.
My guess is you work for Facebook's lawyers Cooley Godward LLP or Gibson Dunn LLP or maybe Orrick Herrington LLP. You say "I have reviewed the docket and no motion was ever filed." Nice try... again. LOL. We are not going to help you. You know you are liars and evidence concealers. We've got the goods on you and curiosity is killing you. Good. Hear the dogs?
DeleteAfter trying the haughty language in the past, you now write "I respectfully disagree." You are a lawyer. Normal people don't talk like that when they know they are lying -- only attorneys do. You are so respectfully nicey nice in front of the judge, then profligate outside the courtroom. Such hypocrites you are. Your profession has become toxic.
"Wild conspiracy theories?" LOL. Nice try. The fish aren't biting. We're not going to help you with what you are dying to know. Your laywer games are going to undo you. All we have to do now is step back and watch you destroy yourselves in corruption. The vultures are coming home to roost.
We just received this email. Since it relates to the topic of the ETHICS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, it is directly relevant (and likely related, we believe) to the corruption exposed by this website. Here it is:
ReplyDelete---------------MESSAGE---------------
Subject: FW: Federal employees' insurance info is 3 clicks away
What’s wrong with this picture? The Obamacare website is forcing people to jump through hoops before they can find out what their rates would be. By contrast, Federal employees can find out their rates with a simple Google search, and three clicks.
Try it.
1. Google “FEHBP” (acronym for “Federal Employee Health Benefits Program”)
2. Click “Plan Information”
3. Click on your State
4. Click on the desired “2014 Rates” document
Instead, they spent $678 million in a no-bid contract with Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate, Toni Townes-Whitley, CGI Federal, who donated $47 million to Obama for America… and the site doesn't work.
This is what happens when conflict of interest ethics rules are not followed.
Why would USPTO Director violate USPTO’s own rules and start a Facebook page with all the news, past and present dangers there are with Facebook.
ReplyDeleteThe USPTO Rules state, “All unauthorized use of USPTO resources is prohibited. The following activities, while not an exhaustive
list, are specific examples of unacceptable uses of the PTOnet, USPTO Wireless Network, and USPTO
A ISs:
• Using resources for commercial purposes, for financial gain, or in support of private business
activities.”
Since by asking and encouraging the USPTO employees, and, inviting the public to use Facebook to follow the Directors blog, the USPTO was and still is “supporting the business activities of Facebook. There is no need to log onto Facebook to connect with the USPTO, whatsoever! All you have to do is bookmark the page of the Directors Blog and you are there. No sign ins or chance of losing your privacy or getting malware!
In May of 2010 CBS ran a story and listed 5 reasons on the Dangers of Facebook
• Your information is being shared with third parties
• Privacy settings revert to a less safe default mode after each redesign
• Facebook ads may contain malware
• Your real friends unknowingly make you vulnerable
• Scammers are creating fake profiles
An article by The Huffington Post by Alexis Kleinman on June 5, 2013 states, “If you click on the wrong link on Facebook a virus may find its way into your bank account and drain it of all your money.”
During the same 2013 time period The New York Times, Bits Blogs informs people of how a 6 year-old virus is all over Facebook right now.
We have already seen the massive fraud and deceit being committed against Leader Technologies, with such things as a judge ignoring his own court order in order to justify his ruling. We have found a judges spouse working for Facebook, and judges owning Facebook stock without disclosing this potential conflict of interests!
These are just a few items that make the connection with the Facebook cabal astonishing!
It just continues to show the corruption that we citizens have to contend with daily!
Is this the "honesty" we are trying to teach our young? But, alas, that is for another blog.
8-O
You are right Darren, there is absolutely no justification for the USPTO Director to be using Facebook and encouraging all 10,000+ employees (incl. the judges) DURING its own Leader v. Facebook reexamination proceedings. This is a cover-up.
DeleteJust read through the Obamacare "Privacy Policy" just now. Made some notes of some of the more hilarious wiggle room for any kind of mischief Obama's bitheads want to get up to. For example:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.healthcare.gov/privacy/
1. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "HealthCare.gov doesn’t collect any personally identifiable information (PII) about you during your visit to our website unless you choose to provide it to us. We do, however, collect information from visitors who read, browse, and/or download information from our site."
MY COMMENT: Ahhhmmm. These two sentences are ambiguous if not downright contradictory. We don't and we do. Classic Orwellian doublespeak.
2. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "Healthcare.gov never collects information for commercial marketing or any purpose unrelated to our mission and goals."
MY COMMENT: "our mission and goals" is wide enough for a frieght train.
3. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "The HealthCare.gov staff analyzes and reports on the collected data from these tools. The reports are available only to HealthCare.gov managers, members of the HealthCare.gov communications and Web teams, and other designated staff who need this information to perform their duties."
MY COMMENT: This list of approved analysts is wide enough for a frieght train.
4. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "HealthCare.gov keeps the data from our measurement tools as long as needed to support the mission of the website."
MY COMMENT: "support the mission of the website." An unscrupulous definition means FOREVER. Since this President will lie to us to our faces, why should we believe this for a minute?
5. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "we will safeguard the information you provide in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. Section 552a)."
MY COMMENT: They didn't even provide a link to the Privacy Act. Besides, what layman is going to check the Act. And even if we are able to read it, what's the point since Obama pulled a bait and switch on us to our faces over our existing health plans. Why should we trust him with all this reference to legal standards that he is obviously not following?"
6. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "All uses of Web-based technologies comply with existing privacy and data safeguarding policies and standards."
MY COMMENT: The Facebook Club practically screams: "Privacy is dead." Obama is propped up by the Facebook Club. So this statements means there are NO SAFEGUARDS.
7. THIS IS DECEPTIVE: "HealthCare.gov will keep data collected long enough to achieve the specified objective for which they were collected."
MY COMMENT: Who defines the "objective?" Obama's Facebook Club that proudly proclaims the "death of privacy" and has built big servers in Sweden to collect all the data that Obama and NSA employees give them.
This disclosure is a cruel deception meant to fool the unsuspecting.
Found another gem:
Delete"How HealthCare.gov uses third-party websites and applications.
"As a response to OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive, HealthCare.gov uses a variety of technologies and social media services to communicate and interact with citizens. These third-party website and application (TPWA) tools include popular social networking and media sites, open source software communities, and more. Examples include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube."
Obamacare ADMITS using Leader Technologies' social networking invention!!! Did they get permission?
Rain,
ReplyDeleteYou may have uncovered the Obama / Facebook hidden political agenda in the Leader v. Facebook corruption:
"...open source software communities, and more. Examples include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube."
The administration is claiming that Leader Technologies' invention is "open source." This has been Facebook's claim from Day 1 of the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement trial. But, Facebook lost on this claim since they did not prove that prior art existed. The only thing Facebook accomplished was buying off the federal judges and Chief Justice Roberts to confiscate Leader's property by judicial fiat.
So, now we see the method in their madness. They NEEDED the Leader Technologies inventions to be "open source" to be able to make this claim in the Obamacare website!
The chickens are coming home to roost.
Great find, Rain! You get an attaboy. We have researched this further and added a new Nov. 4 Update Sidebar and Footnote 11 on this Privacy Policy. This may become another SMOKING GUN for the Congressional Committees since these are FALSE AND DECEPTIVE STATEMENTS in the Obamacare site. Leader Technologies has more than one patent, and on the patent they sued Facebook on in Leader v. Facebook, Facebook was judged to be in "literal infringement" on 11 of 11 claims. This is the highest form of infringement. This "open source" intellectual property statement in the Obamacare privacy policy is scandalously untrue and deceptive.
DeleteWe encourage all our readers to bring this false Obamacare claim to the attention of your Senators, congressperson and media.
How could we have missed this? On July 29, 2013 President Obama actually honored "Civic Hacking."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/29/honoring-open-government-and-civic-hacking-champions-change
These are more Orwellian attempts to desensitize the American populace to intellectual property theft - - - always in the name of innovation and progress. Hacking is illegal and disrespectful to honest innovators who actually do the hard work to create what these people are being honored by our President for stealing.
Copying is easy. Innovating is hard.
Entrepreneurship is off markedly from 2008. No wonder. Why should an innovator bother doing the hard work to create something that is just going to be stolen by Obama's "Civic Hackers?" Beam me up Scottie.
After finding the boldface lie about the Obamacare website being "open source" (thanks for the attaboy!), I started reading the site's Privacy Policy in detail. Now I discover without even having to dig that hard, that our nation's first Chief Technology Officer, Obama appointee ANEESH CHOPRA cannot even read his own checkbook properly. No wonder the Obamacare website is a disaster. Keep reading, this isn't hard to follow...
ReplyDeleteThe Policy cites "OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive" as the justification for their "open source" claims. That made me wonder, What additional lies will we find if we start scratching this itch?
Here's the White House link to OMB Memo M-10-06, Open Government Directive, which was published on December 8, 2009:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-06.pdf
The first paragraph says "This Directive is informed by recommendations from the Federal Chief Technology Officer..." Obama had appointed ANEESH CHOPRA to that position which became official on May 21, 2009.
So, the White House is laying its false claims at the feet of ANEESH CHOPRA, whose SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING occured on May 19, 2009. Here it is from the Government Printing Office:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54288.pdf
CHOPRA lists his political donations on p. 37. He has just one listing for donations relative to Pres. Obama:
"$2,750 Obama for America (2007–8)"
However, the Federal Election Commission shows:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
4/19/2007 Obama For America $250
2/07/2008 Obama For America $250
4/14/2008 Obama For America $250
7/31/2008 Obama For America $1000
8/27/2008 Obama For America $200
8/27/2008 Obama For America $200
Subtotal=$2150
7/01/2008 Obama Victory Fund $1000
8/15/2008 Obama Victory Fund $1000
Subtotal=$2000
TOTAL ANEESH CHOPRA donations to OBAMA = $4150
He misrepresented his donations to Obama by 34% in his own Senate Confirmation Hearing. He couldn't even add up 8 items in his checkbook? And we put America's information technology infrastructure into his hands? Incompetent or Deceptive?
Thanks AGAIN Rain!!! Great find. Since documents that expose the Facebook Club have an uncanny habit of disappearing from the web, we have re-posted the White House OMB document.
Deletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/181805763/OMB-Memo-M-10-06-Open-Government-Directive-Dec-8-2009
OBAMA'S CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER AND FACEBOOK'S COOLEY GODWARD LLP ATTORNEY COLLABORATED DURING THE LEADER V. FACEBOOK PROCEEDINGS.
ReplyDeleteBINGO! The conflict of interest merry-go-round continues. According to his Senate Confirmation Hearing (PAGE 40), Obama's Chief Technology Officer, ANEESH CHOPRA, served "as a member of the Obama Transition Team working on technology, innovation and government reform policy memoranda."
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg54288/pdf/CHRG-111shrg54288.pdf
Facebook's Leader v. Facebook law firm, COOLEY GODWARD LLP, had partner DONALD K. STERN who was also on the Obama Transition Team. Stern "advised" the Justice Department on judicial appointments, incl. two of the four Leader v. Facebook judges (Leonard P. Stark and Evan J. Wallach).
AFI posted this Cooley press release on May 29, 2013:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144442377/Cooley-Partner-Donald-K-Stern-Named-Advisor-to-U-S-Department-of-Justice-Transition-Team-Cooley-LLP-Dec-5-2008
Evidently, CHOPRA colluded with Cooley Godward LLP and the Justice Department to kill Leader Technologies' patent. This is the THIRD direct tie between Facebook and the Obama Administration. The other two are Obama's two personal legal counsels from Perkins Coie LLP, Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
Rain, I would hate to be a corrupt person with you on my heals. Great work. Thank you.
DeleteAneesh Chopra defined "open source" in response to a question from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV on Page 116 of his Senate Confirmation Hearing Testimony. He wrote:
ReplyDelete"Open Source: From my perspective, this refers to the method by which software is developed--typically through a collaborative approach. This means often unrelated individuals or organizations work together, often in an ad-hoc manner, to deliver software that is of common interest. Key to this model is that the entirety of the intellectual property encourages sharing and collaboration (for example, under the General Purpose License) and allows for the distribution of source code or other related artifacts."
Leader Technologies spent $10 million and 145,000 man-hours to develop social networking. By contrast, Zuckerberg claims to have built Facebook in "one to two weeks" by himself, while studying for sophomore finals. Obamacare's claim to have used only "open source" software is another boldface lie to the American people.
Each morning at a meeting of UBS’s interest-rate-derivatives desk in Tokyo, Mr. Hayes would change his status on his Facebook page to reflect his daily desires for Libor to move up or down Facebook than added the feature to tag certain friends or groups, (bankers lawyer Shady traders etc.) The ponzi scheme had everything it needed mark zuckerberg ,They all new that facebook was stolen and the cod David Kirkpatrick and Henry Blodget new about libor manipulation as far back as 2004 IN the early days of FACEBOOK david Kirkpatick set up libor manipulation in England under the disguise of doing an investigation The FBI knows of this and got Mark Zuckerberg to run a giant spy machine in Palo Alto, you see robert muller you were not the only one that got the emails on how facebook was stolen. JP Morgan new facebook was stolen and that little cunt Reid Hoffman Sean Parker (Facebook extortionist?)BILL GATES knows that facebook was stolen its called insider trading you little shit Zuckerberg is an admitted forger and an admitted hacker, Orrick, the firm Eduardo Savrin accused of conspiring with Zuckerberg to deprive him of his shares when he stole the idea facebook. Orrick perjury and conspiring along with Zuckerberg to protect his stolen empire, You little slut Orrick you new that facebook was stolen. Zuckerberg is a self-confessed hacker who never invented anything in his life.
ReplyDeletethat little slug lisa simpson BLACK-MAILED their way in to facebook. The timing of Zuckerberg's donation was questioned by some as a move for damage control to his image, New Jersey Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE and Newark Mayor CORY BOOKER you new how Mark Zuckerberg stole facebook you got the emails on how he stole facebook. the FBI new of this and that facebook was stolen and the NSA and Snowden and now Putin. you see i sent a copy of the emails to NSA
RABOBANK to pay 1.2b for libor manipulation ,the U.S. justice department allows the bank to avoid criminal prosecution in exchange for its continued co.operation in the investigation of libor manipulation. More than two dozen robobank employees in six offices in europe and U.S.A and Asia were involved in this sham Fraud scam cheat. David Kirkpatrick and Henry Blodget new of this David Kirkpatrick set up libor manipulation info on facebook and David Kirkpatrick and Henry Blodget new that facebook was stolen. LIBOR The strategy wasn’t a secret. Each morning at a meeting of UBS’s interest-rate-derivatives desk in Tokyo, Mr. Hayes would change his status on his Facebook page to reflect his daily desires for Libor to move up or down
ReplyDeleteJP Morgan and the justice dept in a proposal the bank said it wanted to limit any possible criminal exposure, justice department spokesman Brian Fallion said i have no comment on the rumours [ JP Morgan spokesman Mark Komblau declined to comment JP Morgan new facebook was stolen they got the emails on this?????
MARK PINCUS: Michael Arrington said that Zynga intentionally worked with scam advertisers Pincus said: So I funded [Zynga] myself but I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues HOFFMAN: Business Insider is reporting Hoffman and Mark Pincus also participated in the investment in facebook and new that FB was stolen. In 2005 Thiel created Founders Fund, a San Francisco based venture capital fund. Other partners in the fund include Sean Parker, Ken Howery, and Luke Nosek. Thiel formed friendships with other students at Stanford, many of whom contributed to the Stanford Review. These include Keith Rabois, David O. Sacks, and Reid Hoffman.Hoffman now even admits publicly to having coached the 19-year old Zuckerberg at Harvard you new facebook was stolen you suck up little shit hoffmann
THE FBI KNOW THAT FACEBOOK IS STOLEN AND ARE LYING AND SPYING???????
Kathleen Sibelius testified to Congress last night that they have over 200 fix items on their punch list. Folks, for those of you who do not know how software programming works, a list of 200 non-trivial items on a punch list for a large project like this is HUGE. ENORMOUS. GARGANTUAN. It's like admitting that the drywall, flooring and ceiling in your new house were installed wrong! Besides that, it is "working."
ReplyDeleteEven more scandalous is her testimony that their "end-to-end" security testing is being done everyday with LIVE, CONFIDENTIAL CUSTOMER DATA. This doesn't even count her admission that they don't do background checks on "navigators" who have access to America's confidential healthcare information. This is a fundamental breach of the HIPAA laws on healthcare privacy and confidentiality.
It appears that Obama's first Chief Technology Officer, Aneesh Chopra, served us incompetently.