Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News December 5, 2013

Dec 05 2013

The Voice of the White House

 

Thought of the day: You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

            Washington, D.C. December 6, 2013: “At first, the Internet, developed by the U.S. Army, was an intellectual toy but then it blossomed out to become one of the most vital segments of modern society. At this point in time, our entire society is geared to the Internet and our government, at the direction of the White House, is frantic to get the Internet under control so that they can control any and all information. The government now has a strong presence in the print media (which is why subscribers are leaving them in enormous numbers) and is seeking the means to get control of the Internet. The revelations of Edward Snowden has done great damage to their plans as they have alerted the public to the degree and extent to which they are spied on and, untimately, controlled.

            And in the very near future, we will be publishing sensational excerpts from a forbidden manuscript compiled by the CIA’s Robert Crowley on that agencies’ activity behind the scenes in Vietnam.

            Covered will be drug-running, extensive official torture centers, wholesale murder of innocent civilians, international manipulations concerning rubber and oil and much, much more.

            These postings are a bit too uncomfortable to post on line so they can be found on the Slaughterhouse Informer.

 

The Slaughterhouse

Informer

 

 

 

A Compendium of Various Official Lies, Business Scandals, Small Murders, Frauds, and Other Gross Defects of Our Current Political, Business and Religious Moral Lepers.

This E-magazine appears on a weekly basis and contains much material that is often more in-depth than is found on the tbr website. It costs only $5.oo per month and is easily cancelled. It is not popular with pro-government people and despised by right-wing Republicans and the banking community.



 

 

 

Welcome to the Memory Hole: Disappearing Edward Snowden

by Peter Van Buren

TomGram

 

What if Edward Snowden was made to disappear? No, I’m not suggesting some future CIA rendition effort or a who-killed-Snowden conspiracy theory of a disappearance, but a more ominous kind.

 

What if everything a whistleblower had ever exposed could simply be made to go away? What if every National Security Agency (NSA) document Snowden released, every interview he gave, every documented trace of a national security state careening out of control could be made to disappear in real-time? What if the very posting of such revelations could be turned into a fruitless, record-less endeavor?

 

Am I suggesting the plot for a novel by some twenty-first century George Orwell? Hardly. As we edge toward a fully digital world, such things may soon be possible, not in science fiction but in our world — and at the push of a button. In fact, the earliest prototypes of a new kind of “disappearance” are already being tested. We are closer to a shocking, dystopian reality that might once have been the stuff of futuristic novels than we imagine. Welcome to the memory hole.

 

Even if some future government stepped over one of the last remaining red lines in our world and simply assassinated whistleblowers as they surfaced, others would always emerge. Back in 1948, in his eerie novel 1984, however, Orwell suggested a far more diabolical solution to the problem. He conjured up a technological device for the world of Big Brother that he called “the memory hole.” In his dark future, armies of bureaucrats, working in what he sardonically dubbed the Ministry of Truth, spent their lives erasing or altering documents, newspapers, books, and the like in order to create an acceptable version of history. When a person fell out of favor, the Ministry of Truth sent him and all the documentation relating to him down the memory hole. Every story or report in which his life was in any way noted or recorded would be edited to eradicate all traces of him.

 

In Orwell’s pre-digital world, the memory hole was a vacuum tube into which old documents were physically disappeared forever. Alterations to existing documents and the deep-sixing of others ensured that even the sudden switching of global enemies and alliances would never prove a problem for the guardians of Big Brother. In the world he imagined, thanks to those armies of bureaucrats, the present was what had always been — and there were those altered documents to prove it and nothing but faltering memories to say otherwise. Anyone who expressed doubts about the truth of the present would, under the rubric of “thoughtcrime,” be marginalized or eliminated.

 

Government and Corporate Digital Censorship

 

Increasingly, most of us now get our news, books, music, TV, movies, and communications of every sort electronically. These days, Google earns more advertising revenue than all U.S. print media combined. Even the venerable Newsweek no longer publishes a paper edition. And in that digital world, a certain kind of “simplification” is being explored. The Chinese, Iranians, and others are, for instance, already implementing web-filtering strategies to block access to sites and online material of which their governments don’t approve. The U.S. government similarly (if somewhat fruitlessly) blocks its employees from viewing Wikileaks and Edward Snowden material (as well as websites like TomDispatch) on their work computers — though not of course at home. Yet.

 

Great Britain, however, will soon take a significant step toward deciding what a private citizen can see on the web even while at home. Before the end of the year, almost all Internet users there will be “opted-in” to a system designed to filter out pornography. By default, the controls will also block access to “violent material,” “extremist and terrorist related content,” “anorexia and eating disorder websites,” and “suicide related websites.” In addition, the new settings will censor sites mentioning alcohol or smoking. The filter will also block “esoteric material,” though a UK-based rights group says the government has yet to make clear what that category will include.

 

And government-sponsored forms of Internet censorship are being privatized. New, off-the-shelf commercial products guarantee that an organization does not need to be the NSA to block content. For example, the Internet security company Blue Coat is a domestic leader in the field and a major exporter of such technology. It can easily set up a system to monitor and filter all Internet usage, blocking web sites by their address, by keywords, or even by the content they contain. Among others, Blue Coat software is used by the U.S. Army to control what its soldiers see while deployed abroad, and by the repressive governments in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Burma to block outside political ideas.

 

Google Search…

 

In a sense, Google Search already “disappears” material. Right now Google is the good guy vis-à-vis whistleblowers. A quick Google search (0.22 seconds) turns up more than 48 million hits on Edward Snowden, most of them referencing his leaked NSA documents. Some of the websites display the documents themselves, still labeled “Top Secret.” Less than half a year ago, you had to be one of a very limited group in the government or contractually connected to it to see such things. Now, they are splayed across the web.

 

Google — and since Google is the planet’s number one search engine, I’ll use it here as a shorthand for every search engine, even those yet to be invented — is in this way amazing and looks like a massive machine for spreading, not suppressing, news. Put just about anything on the web and Google is likely to find it quickly and add it into search results worldwide, sometimes within seconds. Since most people rarely scroll past the first few search results displayed, however, being disappeared already has a new meaning online. It’s no longer enough just to get Google to notice you. Getting it to place what you post high enough on its search results page to be noticed is what matters now. If your work is number 47,999,999 on the Snowden results, you’re as good as dead, as good as disappeared. Think of that as a starting point for the more significant forms of disappearance that undoubtedly lie in our future.

 

Hiding something from users by reprogramming search engines is one dark step to come. Another is actually deleting content, a process as simple as transforming the computer coding behind the search process into something predatory. And if Google refuses to implement the change-over to “negative searches,” the NSA, which already appears to be able to reach inside Google, can implant its own version of malicious code as it has already done in at least 50,000 instances.

 

But never mind the future: here’s how a negative search strategy is already working, even if today its focus — largely on pedophiles — is easy enough to accept. Google recently introduced software that makes it harder for users to locate child abuse material. As company head Eric Schmidt put it, Google Search has been “fine-tuned” to clean up results for more than 100,000 terms used by pedophiles to look for child pornography. Now, for instance, when users type in queries that may be related to child sexual abuse, they will find no results that link to illegal content. Instead, Google will redirect them to help and counseling sites. “We will soon roll out these changes in more than 150 languages, so the impact will be truly global,” Schmidt wrote.

 

While Google is redirecting searches for kiddie porn to counseling sites, the NSA has developed a similar ability. The agency already controls a set of servers codenamed Quantum that sit on the Internet’s backbone. Their job is to redirect “targets” away from their intended destinations to websites of the NSA’s choice. The idea is: you type in the website you want and end up somewhere less disturbing to the agency. While at present this technology may be aimed at sending would-be online jihadis to more moderate Islamic material, in the future it could, for instance, be repurposed to redirect people seeking news to an Al-Jazeera lookalike site with altered content that fits the government’s version of events.

 

…and Destroy

 

However, blocking and redirecting technologies, which are bound to grow more sophisticated, will undoubtedly be the least of it in the future. Google is already taking things to the next level in the service of a cause that just about anyone would applaud. They are implementing picture-detection technology to identify child abuse photographs whenever they appear on their systems, as well as testing technology that would remove illegal videos. Google’s actions against child porn may be well intentioned indeed, but the technology being developed in the service of such anti-child-porn actions should chill us all. Imagine if, back in 1971, the Pentagon Papers, the first glimpse most Americans had of the lies behind the Vietnam War, had been deletable. Who believes that the Nixon White House wouldn’t have disappeared those documents and that history wouldn’t have taken a different, far grimmer course?

 

Or consider an example that’s already with us. In 2009, many Kindle owners discovered that Amazon had reached into their devices overnight and remotely deleted copies of Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 (no irony intended). The company explained that the books, mistakenly “published” on its machines, were actually bootlegged copies of the novels. Similarly, in 2012, Amazon erased the contents of a customer’s Kindle without warning, claiming her account was “directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies.” Using the same technology, Amazon now has the ability to replace books on your device with “updated” versions, the content altered. Whether you are notified or not is up to Amazon.

 

In addition to your Kindle, remote control over your other devices is already a reality. Much of the software on your computer communicates in the background with its home servers, and so is open to “updates” that can alter content. The NSA uses malware — malicious software remotely implanted into a computer — to change the way the machine works. The Stuxnet code that likely damaged 1,000 centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium is one example of how this sort of thing can operate.

 

These days, every iPhone checks back with headquarters to announce what apps you’ve purchased; in the tiny print of a disclaimer routinely clicked through, Apple reserves the right to disappear any app for any reason. In 2004, TiVo sued Dish Network for giving customers set-top boxes that TiVo said infringed on its software patents. Though the case was settled in return for a large payout, as an initial remedy, the judge ordered Dish to electronically disable the 192,000 devices it had already installed in people’s homes. In the future, there will be ever more ways to invade and control computers, alter or disappear what you’re reading, and shunt you to sites weren’t looking for.

 

Snowden’s revelations of what the NSA does to gather information and control technology, which have riveted the planet since June, are only part of the equation. How the government will enhance its surveillance and control powers in the future is a story still to be told. Imagine coupling tools to hide, alter, or delete content with smear campaigns to discredit or dissuade whistleblowers, and the power potentially available to both governments and corporations becomes clearer.

 

The ability to move beyond altering content into altering how people act is obviously on governmental and corporate agendas as well. The NSA has already gathered blackmail data from the digital porn viewing habits of “radical” Muslims. The NSA sought to wiretap a Congressman without a warrant. The ability to collect information on Federal judges, government leaders, and presidential candidates makes J. Edgar Hoover’s 1950s blackmail schemes as quaint as the bobby socks and poodle skirts of that era. The wonders of the Internet regularly stun us. The dystopian, Orwellian possibilities of the Internet have, until recently, not caught our attention in the same way. They should.

 

Read This Now, Before It’s Deleted

 

The future for whistleblowers is grim. At a time not so far distant, when just about everything is digital, when much of the world’s Internet traffic flows directly through the United States or allied countries, or through the infrastructure of American companies abroad, when search engines can find just about anything online in fractions of a second, when the Patriot Act and secret rulings by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court make Google and similar tech giants tools of the national security state (assuming organizations like the NSA don’t simply take over the search business directly), and when the sophisticated technology can either block, alter, or delete digital material at the push of a button, the memory hole is no longer fiction.

 

Leaked revelations will be as pointless as dusty old books in some attic if no one knows about them. Go ahead and publish whatever you want. The First Amendment allows you to do that. But what’s the point if no one will be able to read it? You might more profitably stand on a street corner and shout at passers by. In at least one easy-enough-to-imagine future, a set of Snowden-like revelations will be blocked or deleted as fast as anyone can (re)post them.

 

The ever-developing technology of search, turned 180 degrees, will be able to disappear things in a major way. The Internet is a vast place, but not infinite.  It is increasingly being centralized in the hands of a few companies under the control of a few governments, with the U.S. sitting on the major transit routes across the Internet’s backbone.

 

About now you should feel a chill. We’re watching, in real time, as 1984 turns from a futuristic fantasy long past into an instructional manual. There will be no need to kill a future Edward Snowden. He will already be dead.

 

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. A TomDispatch regular, he writes about current events at his blog, We Meant Well. His next book, Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent, will be available April 2014.

 

 

 

Curtis Fineman, Deputy Director, DHS

 

 

Fact vs Fiction: The Auschwitz Official records

 

 

Note: The author of this article, Dr. Germar Rudolf, was extradited by the United States government to Germany where he was charged with ‘defaming Jews’. This is a law in Germany at the present time and it does not matter if the article is factual or not. It does not matter if a Recognized Holocaust Scholar like Breitman, Browning or Lipstadt states that 100 million Jews were killed by German Girl Scouts during a 1943 picnic, any refutation of such a idiotic statement, based entirely on extant records, would earn the writer five  years in a German jail. If the documentary record was found to be accurate to the last detail, nevertheless, German law states that one may never contradict a Recognized Holocaust Scholar at the risk of a five year prison sentence. That the holocaust scholar, or fiction writer as they should be more accurately termed , might be a complete lunatic like Goldenhagen  and the figures given invented out of their head, daring to question them brings five years of eating cold beans off a tin plate while someone with a monocle watches you through a hole in the door. The records upon which this article is based are on microfilm and Dr. Rudolf has been selling them to a large audience.  Ed.

 

 

Official German Record of all Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from May of 1940 through December of 1944

 

Prisoner records of Auschwitz camp from May, 1940 through December 1944 from the Glücks complete Concentration Camp microfilm records now located in the Russian Central Archives[1]

 

(Note: The attached statistical tables concerning prisoners in Auschwitz camp from its inception to its closing are taken directly from Soviet archival material, now available on microfilm from the former Soviet Central Archives. Also, a good deal of corroborative material from the German Archives concerning the German State Railways has been located in the German State Archives (Bundesarchiv) and utilized. The railroad was responsible for the transportation of inmates to and from concentration camps in the figures from the Russian files is accurately reflected in the Reichsbahn documents.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non Jewish Prisoners Entering Auschwitz

 

1940

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

70

1225

147

1156

1873

471

637

1190

1941

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1691

1339

221

4051

1793

731

1925

473

785

7191

1215

1217

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

843

1508

1071

1817

1881

2583

3493

3106

1628

2952

2507

3172

 
  6669   22632   26561
1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

9474

4065

15618

  7346

4868

3368

4942

5282

4531

8179

3676

4961

1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1767

1052

573

5971

2097

1412

1368

6890

4604

674

1854

1251

 
  76310   29513  
                   

 

Total non-Jews in Auschwitz, 1940-1944: 161,685

 

Sources: CSA No. 187603: Roll 281-1940: Frames 107-869-Roll 282-1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286-1945: Frames 001-329.

 

 

Jewish Prisoners Entering Auschwitz 1941-1944

 

1941

July

Nov

Dec

 

171

1

6

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1166

6762

1000

3004

9736

3518

3419

5990

4146

4742

1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

6076

2507

9037

5054

2453

2520

4201

13382

7990

1624

3921

7180

  178   43483   65945
1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

 

1445

1299

1178

3175

18927

8438

12924

12705

2126

1177

 
  63394  
               

 

Total Jews in Auschwitz, 1941-1944: 173,000

 

Total number of inmates in Auschwitz, 1940-1944

334,785

 

 Sources: CSA No. 187603: -Roll 282-1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Typhus Deaths in Auschwitz, 1941-1944

 

1941

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

2128

5084

2585

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1776

1515

3018

1392

2911

3688

4124

4968

1497

6092

103

1023

1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

2123

2979

4604

2835

2378

2980

3438

2633

2901

3549

4621

4679

 
  9797   32107   39720
1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

2801

1933

2321

1771

981

1575

1121

1847

3313

3095

927

120

 
  21805  
                     

 

 

Total deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1941-1944

103,447

 

Sources:  CSA No. 187603: 1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286.

 

Jewish Typhus Deaths in Auschwitz, 1942-1944

 

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

875

906

1789

875

1991

2406

3090

3271

919

4789

29

621

1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1502

1729

3981

895

1721

1990

2017

968

1803

2705

3219

2842

1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1429

876

1312

632

407

884

455

1129

1871

1294

927

91

  21561   25372   11307
                     

 

Total Jewish deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1942-1944

58,240

Total non-Jewish deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1940-1944

45,207

 

Sources: CSA No. 187603:  Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deaths by natural causes (other than typhus) in Auschwitz, 1940-1944

 

1940

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

6

23

15

35

9

21

34

30

1941

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

142

175

165

9

47

19

5

11

23

2

39

48

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

120

77

42

39

23

21

16

5

19

25

49

61

  173   685   497
1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

103

221

198

89

62

56

31

38

96

102

235

197

1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

120

191

178

167

155

151

98

65

54

67

94

17

 
  1428   1357  

 

Death by natural causes (other than typhus), 1940-1944

4,140

 

Sources: CSA No. 187603: Roll 281-1940: Frames 107-869-Roll 282-1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286.

 

Death by natural causes (other than typhus), Jews, Auschwitz, 1941-1944

 

1941

Dec

 

7

1942

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

62

39

32

26

11

5

9

1

11

19

37

48

1943

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

62

117

120

43

37

41

16

24

61

81

104

130

  7   300   836
1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

98

127

111

140

90

107

49

32

41

39

81

6

 
  921  
                       

 

Total Jewish deaths by natural causes (other than typhus), 1941-1944

2,064

Sources: CSA No. 187603: 1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286.

 

Transfers from Auschwitz, 1940-1944

 

1940

Oct

 

     11

1941

Jan

Feb

April

May

June

 

657

8

1002

36

4

1942

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

 

196

275

158

423

1845

753

       11   1707   3650
1943

Mar

Apr

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

3001

1024

3195

600

4544

3500

333

1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

612

2060

881

2500

7923

9228

15628

8957

9091

33244

8309

1455

 
  16197   99888  
                             

 

Total transferred from Auschwitz, 1940-1944

121,453

 

Sources: CSA No. 187603: Roll 281-1940: Frames 107-869-Roll 282-1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transfers of Jews from Auschwitz, 1941-1944

 

1941

Jan

Apr

May

 

271

459

17

1942

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

 

120

37

30

112

873

120

1943

Mar

Apr

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

1572

630

2871

395

3201

3264

173

  747   1292   12106
1944

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

 

409

1843

410

1927

7540

8109

13765

7501

8502

28509

7322

761

 
  86598  
             

 

Total number of Jews transferred from Auschwitz, 1941-1944

100,743

 

 Sources: CSA No. 187603: 1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Executions at Auschwitz, 1940-1943

 

1940

Nov 22

 

40 Poles

1941

Jan 3

July 3

Aug 1

Nov 14

Dec 1

Dec 20

 

1 Pole

80 Poles

1 Jew

151 Poles

1 Pole

5 Poles

  Poles      40

Jews       0

  Poles      238

Jews       1

       
1942   1942 cont.  
Jan 24

Apr 3

May 27

May 28

June 4

June 9

June 10

June 11

June 12

 

June 13

June 15

June 16

June 18

June 19

June 20

 

June 22

June 23

June 25

 

1 Russian

11 Poles

150 Poles

1 Jew

3 Jews

3 Jews

13 Poles

3 Jews

60 Poles, 2 Jews

6 Jews

200 Poles

2 Poles, 2 Jews

 8 Jews

 50 Poles, 4 Jews

4 Czechs

4 Jews

3 Jews

3 Jews

 

June 26

June 27

June 29

July 1

July 2

July 14

July 16

July 20

July 23

July 29

Aug 11

Aug 13

Aug 18

Aug 21

Sept 5

Sept 25

Nov 9

Nov 14

Nov 17

Dec 4

40 Poles, 1 Jew

4 Jews

2 Poles, 3 Jews

15 Jews

9 Jews

10 Poles, 2 Jews

9 Poles

50 Poles

2 Jews

14 Poles

11 Jews

1 Pole

60 Poles

57 Poles

1 Jew

3 Poles

3 Poles

1 Pole

1 Pole

9 Poles, 2 Russians

Poles

Jews

Russians

Czechs

737

91

3

4

               

 

1943

Jan 6

Jan 14

Jan 25

Jan 26

Feb 7

Feb 9

Feb 13

Feb 19

Mar 17

Apr 3

Apr 13

May 22

May 31

June 10

June 25

June 28

July 24

July 28

Aug 20

Sept 4

Sept 21

Sept 28

Oct 11

Nov 9

 

9 Poles, 5 Jews

6 Poles

22 Poles

7 Poles, 2 Jews

2 Poles

2 Poles, 1 Jew

16 Poles

11 Poles, 3 Jews

1 Pole

26 Poles

2 Gypsies

13 Poles, 6 Jews, 5 Gypsies

1 Gypsy

20 Poles

68 Poles

30 Poles

1 Pole

4 Poles

38 Poles

45 Poles, 8 Russians

2 Poles

9 Poles, 6 Jews, 12 Gypsies, 1 Czech

54 Poles

50 Poles

Poles

Jews

Russians

Gypsies

Czechs

436

23

8

19

2

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

1944

Feb 1

 

 

Mar 24

Sept 15

 

19 Poles

8 Russians

4 Poles

3 Jews

2 Poles

Poles

Jews

Russians

 

25

3

8

 

     

 

 

 Sources: CSA No. 187603: Roll 281-1940: Frames 107-869-Roll 282-1940-41: Frames 001-875-Roll 283-1941-42:Frames 001-872-Roll 284-1942-43: Frames 003-862-Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286.

 

Total number of inmates executed: 1359     Total Russians executed: 19

Total Gypsies executed: 19                   Total Poles executed: 1208

Total Jews executed: 117                                      Total Czechs executed: 6

Total of Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, May, 1944-October, 1944

 

1944

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

 

8548

3981

6543

3881

163

1

  23,117

 

 Sources: CSA No. 187603: Roll 285-1943-44: Frames 019-852- Roll 286-1945: Frames 001-329.

 

Total number of Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, May-October, 1944:  23,117

 

Note: Number of Hungarian Jews claimed sent to Auschwitz, May-October, 1944:

        Lucy Dawidowicz. The War Against the Jews, New York, 1975.: 450,000

        Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, New York, 1985. 180,000

 

Facebook’s Future Plans for Data Collection Beyond All Imagination

Facebook’s dark plans for the future are given away in its patent applications.

 

December 4, 2013

by Darwin Bond-Graham

CounterPunch 

 

 “No one knows who will live in this cage in the future, or whether at the end of this tremendous development, entirely new prophets will arise, or there will be a great rebirth of old ideas and ideals, or, if neither, mechanized petrification, embellished with a sort of convulsive self-importance. For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.’”

 

—Max Weber, 1905

 

On November 12 Facebook, Inc. filed its 178th patent application for a consumer profiling technique the company calls “inferring household income for users of a social networking system.”

 

“The amount of information gathered from users,” explain Facebook programmers Justin Voskuhl and Ramesh Vyaghrapuri in their patent application, “is staggering — information describing recent moves to a new city, graduations, births, engagements, marriages, and the like.” Facebook and other so-called tech companies have been warehousing all of this information since their respective inceptions. In Facebook’s case, its data vault includes information posted as early as 2004, when the site first went live. Now in a single month the amount of information forever recorded by Facebook —dinner plans, vacation destinations, emotional states, sexual activity, political views, etc.— far surpasses what was recorded during the company’s first several years of operation. And while no one outside of the company knows for certain, it is believed that Facebook has amassed one of the widest and deepest databases in history. Facebook has over 1,189,000,000 “monthly active users” around the world as of October 2013, providing considerable width of data. And Facebook has stored away trillions and trillions of missives and images, and logged other data about the lives of this billion plus statistical sample of humanity. Adjusting for bogus or duplicate accounts it all adds up to about 1/7th of humanity from which some kind of data has been recorded.

 

According to Facebook’s programmers like Voskuhl and Vyaghrapuri, of all the clever uses they have already applied this pile of data toward, Facebook has so far “lacked tools to synthesize this information about users for targeting advertisements based on their perceived income.” Now they have such a tool thanks to the retention and analysis of variable the company’s positivist specialists believe are correlated with income levels.

 

They’ll have many more tools within the next year to run similar predictions. Indeed, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Twitter, and the hundreds of smaller tech lesser-known tech firms that now control the main portals of social, economic, and political life on the web (which is now to say everywhere as all economic and much social activity is made cyber) are only getting started. The Big Data analytics revolutions has barely begun, and these firms are just beginning to tinker with rational-instrumental methods of predicting and manipulating human behavior.

 

There are few, if any, government regulations restricting their imaginations at this point. Indeed, the U.S. President himself is a true believer in Big Data; the brain of Obama’s election team was a now famous “cave” filled with young Ivy League men (and a few women) sucking up electioneering information and crunching demographic and consumer data to target individual voters with appeals timed to maximize the probability of a vote for the new Big Blue, not IBM, but the Democratic Party’s candidate of “Hope” and “Change.” The halls of power are enraptured by the potential of rational-instrumental methods paired with unprecedented access to data that describes the social lives of hundreds of millions.

 

Facebook’s intellectual property portfolio reads like cliff notes summarizing the aspirations of all corporations in capitalist modernity; to optimize efficiency in order to maximize profits and reduce or externalize risk. Unlike most other corporations, and unlike previous phases in the development of rational bureaucracies, Facebook and its tech peers have accumulated never before seen quantities of information about individuals and groups. Recent breakthroughs in networked computing make analysis of these gigantic data sets fast and cheap. Facebook’s patent holdings are just a taste of what’s arriving here and now.

 

The way you type, the rate, common mistakes, intervals between certain characters, is all unique, like your fingerprint, and there are already cyber robots that can identify you as you peck away at keys. Facebook has even patented methods of individual identification with obviously cybernetic overtones, where the machine becomes an appendage of the person. U.S. Patents 8,306,256, 8,472,662, and 8,503,718, all filed within the last year, allow Facebook’s web robots to identify a user based on the unique pixelation and other characteristics of their smartphone’s camera. Identification of the subject is the first step toward building a useful data set to file among the billion or so other user logs. Then comes analysis, then prediction, then efforts to influence a parting of money.

 

Many Facebook patents pertain to advertising techniques that are designed and targeted, and continuously redesigned with ever-finer calibrations by robot programs, to be absorbed by the gazes of individuals as they scroll and swipe across their Facebook feeds, or on third party web sites.

 

Speaking of feeds, U.S. Patent 8,352,859, Facebook’s system for “Dynamically providing a feed of stories about a user of a social networking system” is used by the company to organize the constantly updated posts and activities inputted by a user’s “friends.” Of course embedded in this system are means of inserting advertisements. According to Facebook’s programmers, a user’s feeds are frequently injected with “a depiction of a product, a depiction of a logo, a display of a trademark, an inducement to buy a product, an inducement to buy a service, an inducement to invest, an offer for sale, a product description, trade promotion, a survey, a political message, an opinion, a public service announcement, news, a religious message, educational information, a coupon, entertainment, a file of data, an article, a book, a picture, travel information, and the like.” That’s a long list for sure, but what gets injected is more often than not whatever will boost revenues for Facebook.

 

The advantage here, according to Facebook, is that “rather than having to initiate calls or emails to learn news of another user, a user of a social networking website may passively receive alerts to new postings by other users.” The web robot knows best. Sit back and relax and let sociality wash over you, passively. This is merely one of Facebook’s many “systems for tailoring connections between various users” so that these connections ripple with ads uncannily resonant with desires and needs revealed in the quietly observed flow of e-mails, texts, images, and clicks captured forever in dark inaccessible servers of Facebook, Google and the like. These communications services are free in order to control the freedom of data that might otherwise crash about randomly, generating few opportunities for sales.

 

Where this fails Facebook ratchets up the probability of influencing the user to behave as a predictable consumer. “Targeted advertisements often fail to earn a user’s trust in the advertised product,” explain Facebook’s programmers in U.S. Patent 8,527,344, filed in September of this year. “For example, the user may be skeptical of the claims made by the advertisement. Thus, targeted advertisements may not be very effective in selling an advertised product.” Facebook’s computer programmers who now profess mastery over sociological forces add that even celebrity endorsements are viewed with skepticism by the savvy citizen of the modulated Internet. They’re probably right.

 

Facebook’s solution is to mobilize its users as trusted advertisers in their own right. “Unlike advertisements, most users seek and read content generated by their friends within the social networking system; thus,” concludes Facebook’s mathematicians of human inducement, “advertisements generated by a friend of the user are more likely to catch the attention of the user, increasing the effectiveness of the advertisement.” That Facebook’s current So-And-So-likes-BrandX ads are often so clumsy and ineffective does not negate the qualitative shift in this model of advertising and the possibilities of un-freedom it evokes

 

   Forget iPhones and applications, the tech industry’s core consumer product is now advertising. Their essential practice is mass surveillance conducted in real time through continuous and multiple sensors that pass, for most people, entirely unnoticed. The autonomy and unpredictability of the individual —in Facebook’s language the individual is the “user”— is their fundamental business problem. Reducing autonomy via surveillance and predictive algorithms that can placate existing desires, and even stimulate and mold new desires is the tech industry’s reason for being. Selling their capacious surveillance and consumer stimulus capabilities to the highest bidder is the ultimate end.

 

Sounds too dystopian? Perhaps, and this is by no means the world we live in, not yet. It is, however, a tendency rooted in the tech economy. The advent of mobile, hand-held, wirelessly networked computers, called “smartphones,” is still so new that the technology, and its services feel like a parallel universe, a new layer of existence added upon our existing social relationships, business activities, and political affiliations. In many ways it feels liberating and often playful. Our devices can map geographic routes, identify places and things, provide information about almost anything in real time, respond to our voices, and replace our wallets. Who hasn’t consulted “Dr. Google” to answer a pressing question? Everyone and everything is seemingly within reach and there is a kind of freedom to this utility.

 

Most of Facebook’s “users” have only been registered on the web site since 2010, and so the quintessential social network feels new and fun, and although perhaps fraught with some privacy concerns, it does not altogether fell like a threat to the autonomy of the individual. To say it is, is a cliche sci-fi nightmare narrative of tech-bureaucracy, and we all tell one another that the reality is more complex.

 

Privacy continues, however, too be too narrowly conceptualized as a liberal right against incursions of government, and while the tech companies have certainly been involved in a good deal of old-fashioned mass surveillance for the sake of our federal Big Brother, there’s another means of dissolving privacy that is more fundamental to the goals of the tech companies and more threatening to social creativity and political freedom.

 

Georgetown University law professor Julie Cohen notes that pervasive surveillance is inimical to the spaces of privacy that are required for liberal democracy, but she adds importantly, that the surveillance and advertising strategies of the tech industry goes further.

 

“A society that permits the unchecked ascendancy of surveillance infrastructures, which dampen and modulate behavioral variability, cannot hope to maintain a vibrant tradition of cultural and technical innovation,” writes Cohen in a forthcoming Harvard Law Review article.

 

“Modulation” is Cohen’s term for the tech industry’s practice of using algorithms and other logical machine operations to mine an individual’s data so as to continuously personalize information streams. Facebook’s patents are largely techniques of modulation, as are Google’s and the rest of the industry leaders. Facebook conducts meticulous surveillance on users, collects their data, tracks their movements on the web, and feeds the individual specific content that is determined to best resonate with their desires, behaviors, and predicted future movements. The point is to perfect the form and function of the rational-instrumental bureaucracy as defined by Max Weber: to constantly ratchet up efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. If they succeed in their own terms, the tech companies stand to create a feedback loop made perfectly to fit each an every one of us, an increasingly closed systems of personal development in which the great algorithms in the cloud endlessly tailor the psychological and social inputs of humans who lose the gift of randomness and irrationality.

 

“It is modulation, not privacy, that poses the greater threat to innovative practice,” explains Cohen. “Regimes of pervasively distributed surveillance and modulation seek to mold individual preferences and behavior in ways that reduce the serendipity and the freedom to tinker on which innovation thrives.” Cohen has pointed out the obvious irony here, not that it’s easy to miss; the tech industry is uncritically labeled America’s hothouse of innovation, but it may in fact be killing innovation by disenchanting the world and locking inspiration in an cage.

 

If there were limits to the reach of the tech industry’s surveillance and stimuli strategies it would indeed be less worrisome. Only parts of our lives would be subject to this modulation, and it could therefore benefit us. But the industry aspires to totalitarian visions in which universal data sets are constantly mobilized to transform an individual’s interface with society, family, the economy, and other institutions. The tech industry’s luminaries are clear in their desire to observe and log everything, and use every “data point” to establish optimum efficiency in life as the pursuit of consumer happiness. Consumer happiness is, in turn, a step toward the rational pursuit of maximum corporate profit. We are told that the “Internet of things” is arriving, that soon every object will have embedded within it a computer that is networked to the sublime cloud, and that the physical environment will be made “smart” through the same strategy of modulation so that we might be made free not just in cyberspace, but also in the meatspace.

 

Whereas the Internet of the late 1990s matured as an archipelago of innumerable disjointed and disconnected web sites and databases, today’s Internet is gripped by a handful of giant companies that observe much of the traffic and communications, and which deliver much of the information from an Android phone or laptop computer, to distant servers, and back. The future Internet being built by the tech giants —putting aside the Internet of things for the moment— is already well into its beta testing phase. It’s a seamlessly integrated quilt of web sites and apps that all absorb “user” data, everything from clicks and keywords to biometric voice identification and geolocation.

 

United States Patent 8,572,174, another of Facebook’s recent inventions, allows the company to personalize a web page outside of Facebook’s own system with content from Facebook’s databases. Facebook is selling what the company calls its “rich set of social information” to third party web sites in order to “provide personalized content for their users based on social information about those users that is maintained by, or otherwise accessible to, the social networking system.” Facebook’s users generated this rich social information, worth many billions of dollars as recent quarterly earnings of the company attest.

 

In this way the entire Internet becomes Facebook. The totalitarian ambition here is obvious, and it can be read in the securities filings, patent applications, and other non-sanitized business documents crafted by the tech industry for the financial analysts who supply the capital for further so-called innovation. Everywhere you go on the web, with your phone or tablet, you’re a “user,” and your social network data will be mined every second by every application, site, and service to “enhance your experience,” as Facebook and others say. The tech industry’s leaders aim to expand this into the physical world, creating modulated advertising and environmental experiences as cameras and sensors track our movements.

 

Facebook and the rest of the tech industry fear autonomy and unpredictability. The ultimate expression of these irrational variables that cannot be mined with algorithmic methods is absence from the networks of surveillance in which data is collected.

 

One of Facebook’s preventative measures is United States Patent 8,560,962, “promoting participation of low-activity users in social networking system.” This novel invention devised by programmers in Facebook’s Palo Alto and San Francisco offices involves a “process of inducing interactions,” that are meant to maximize the amount of “user-generated content” on Facebook by getting lapsed users to return, and stimulating all users to produce more and more data. User generated content is, after all, worth billions. Think twice before you hit “like” next time, or tap that conspicuously placed “share” button; a machine likely put that content and interaction before your eyes after a logical operation determined it to have the highest probability of tempting you to add to the data stream, thereby increasing corporate revenues.

 

Facebook’s patents on techniques of modulating “user” behavior are few compared to the real giants of the tech industry’s surveillance and influence agenda. Amazon, Microsoft, and of course Google hold some of the most fundamental patents using personal data to attempt to shape an individual’s behavior into predictable consumptive patterns. Smaller specialized firms like Choicestream and Gist Communications have filed dozens more applications for modulation techniques. The rate of this so-called innovation is rapidly telescoping.

 

Perhaps we do know who will live in the iron cage. It might very well be a cage made of our own user generated content, paradoxically ushering in a new era of possibilities in shopping convenience and the delivery of satisfactory experiences even while it eradicates many degrees of chance, and pain, and struggle (the motive forces of human progress) in a robot-powered quest to have us construct identities and relationships that yield to prediction and computer-generated suggestion. Defense of individual privacy and autonomy today is rightly motivated by the reach of an Orwellian security state (the NSA, FBI, CIA). This surveillance changes our behavior by chilling us, by telling us we are always being watched by authority. Authority thereby represses in us whatever might happen to be defined as “crime,” or any anti-social behavior at the moment. But what about the surveillance that does not seek to repress us, the watching computer eyes and ears that instead hope to stimulate a particular set of monetized behaviors in us with the intimate knowledge gained from our every online utterance, even our facial expressions and finger movements?

 

Darwin Bond-Graham, a contributing editor to CounterPunch, is a sociologist and author who lives and works in Oakland, CA. His essay on economic inequality in the “new” California economy appears in the July issue of CounterPunch magazine. He is a contributor to  Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion

 



[1] Central State Archives No 187603, Rolls 281-286 (Auschwitz)

No responses yet

Leave a Reply