Archives for posts with tag: GOOGLE

Precisely per Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit against google, as of this update, google’s algorithms appear to bury this post when using google search:

google-algorithms - 1

When compared to the identical search terms used at duckduckgo:

google-algorithms - 1 (1)

For both searches the precise search terms were this post’s title “Russian Election Meddling? Naw. It’s Google” and the tags remained the same as they are now: “elections, GOOGLE, meddling, Tulsi Gabbard.” Google buried the post whereas it is the top hit at duckduckgo (I’d posted this piece here at my blog 25 July with Tulsi’s embedded lawsuit, let it sit overnight and did the search on 26 July and took the screenshots posted in this updated version.)

In the meanwhile, it certainly wouldn’t hurt the ‘curious’ (merely risking ‘curiosity killed the cat’) to examine how (Buchanan Report podcast) the US government has used algorithm manipulation against its’ own citizens as well as the Insurge Intelligence investigative report “How The CIA Made Google.”

The stretch John Brennan’s CIA resorted to in regards to pinning election meddling on Russian intelligence looks like a fairy tale authored by clowns compared to what’s up with insider manipulations at google.

Relevant to the preceding, read Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit:

I’d recently noticed an interesting ‘cyber-phenomenon’ when surfing online news outlets, here is last night and this morning’s result (Central Europe Time.) Don’t get me wrong, I’m no internet expert, but sometimes even a computer-troglodyte can detect a bad cyber-odor.

What I’d noticed is, an on-off-on-again-off again (over these past months), very interesting, ability or inability to access information, depending solely on where the cyber-robots decide one can read … indicating where the robot believes you are located. For instance, in today’s case, if I route my VPN [virtual private network] through Russia, to the English language pages of two Spanish publications, I am allowed to read at one, but not the other. This is when it gets interesting.

The Local (thelocal.es) runs much more balanced articles on Catalonia’s succession effort to break with Spain, whereas El Pais in English (elpais.com) is goosestepping with ‘the Russians did it’ western intelligence agencies information operations (PSYOPS) meme.

El Pais features ‘Russia is interfering in Catalonia’ headlines…

cyber manipulation - 1

…running highly disputed (elsewhere) allegations of Russia interfering in Spain’s crisis. Furthermore, El Pais is putting out patently false information in the numerous articles it is running on the leadership of the Catalan independence movement, here is an example:

cyber manipulation - 1 (1)

“It is false that we have ignored the Constitution… because there are international treaties that contemplate the right to self-determination, and constitutions are favorable to interpretation under international law”…

Here the Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont is quoted, and he is correct to state [paraphrased] treaties subscribed to under international law bind nations that have signed those treaties and there are such treaties with language that could be construed to favor Catalan independence; but El Pais falsely interprets this statement, deliberately discrediting Puigdemont’s stance, by adding on:

…he [Puigdemont] said, alluding to the United Nations resolution 50/6, which only acknowledges this right for people “under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation”

Noting a UN resolution is not a treaty, the misrepresentation is clear. By way of example, here is my email to El Pais correcting this, pointing to a valid, in force treaty Spain is a party to, to which Puigdemont could easily be referring:

cyber manipulation - 1 (2)

Dear El Pais

When I lived in Catalonia 7 and 8 years ago, I very much appreciated your newspaper. I cannot say this now, the bias has become palpable. Case in point would be your recent articles emphasizing ’The Right of Self Determination’ is only applicable to colonialism. In fact, this is a very much unsettled question in international law, as demonstrated in article one, paragraph one, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, where the self determination principle’s language is unequivocal; this is a right of ALL peoples:

Article 1
i) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of the right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

“The relatively straightforward language of the first paragraph, in particular, is commonly cited as evidence of the universality of the right to self-determination, although its formulation does little to make the scope of the right more precise. Nevertheless, both the reference to “all” peoples and the fact that the article is found in human rights treaties intended to have universal applicability suggest a scope beyond that of decolonization”

https://pesd.princeton.edu/?q=node/254

As a party to a published international law study specific to the Right of Self Determination…

http://www.nomos-shop.de/Cole-West-Right-of-Self-Determination-of-Peoples-its-Application-to-Indigenous-Peoples-USA/productview.aspx?product=1484

…I can inform El Pais that, Rajoy’s policy of jailing Catalonia’s elected leadership could be the determining factor taken in arguing the Spanish state is delivering to the Catalans what is described as “The offensive right of self determination” or, and an earned right of independence, due to disproportionate Spanish state actions, in addition to any as yet unenforced right of self determination specified elsewhere in human rights treaty law.

Beyond this, Spain’s judiciary clearly IS politicized, as claimed by Puigdemont, when comparing the present arrests to cases which are not prosecuted, for instance the secret Catholic militia El Yunque. There are even worse, to now unpublicized cases, where Spain’s institutions, for political reasons, have failed to pursue prosecutions of patent criminal activities of an egregious nature, I invite a read at:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/11/03/catalonia-paradox/

With sincere regards

Ron West

http://ronaldthomaswest.com

“The history of the great events of this world are scarcely more than a history of crime” -Voltaire

Of course El Pais did not respond to my mail and I did not expect they would; the point of the mail is covering future possible circumstance of El Pais editors claiming ignorance in a case of ‘journalistic’ denial.

Now, back to the robot: If, I happen to be an English literate person the robot thinks is located in Russia (because of my VPN identifying my location in Russia, with routing through a Russian server) and I want to read western press, I’m allowed to read the rank propaganda at El Pais, but not the much more accurate reporting at The Local:

cyber manipulation - 1 (3)

403. That’s an error.

Your client does not have permission to get  URL / from this server. That’s all we know.

But if I run my VPN through a western country, in this case Greece, I can load The Local page, no problem:

cyber manipulation - 1 (4)

Now, I seriously doubt The Local’s servers are going to be configured to fence out Russian readers, that simply makes no sense (except in the case of The Local servers hacked by western intelligence, a distinct possibility) because The Local is much less biased towards Russia in its coverage of the news in Catalonia and doesn’t print the, in some cases, outright false, and in other cases seriously misleading, sort of articles one finds at El Pais. It is even less likely Russia itself is blocking The Local, if Russia were to block one of sites, it would be El Pais.

What we appear to be looking at, and it is highly doubtful there is an otherwise innocent explanation, is cyber war, where Russians, those who happen to be English literate readers, are directed to western media that is propagandized; along the lines of ‘look, Mr or Ms Russian citizen, at the evil meddling of Putin in the liberal democracies affairs.’

The unanswered question (for myself) is, why is it a Google robot provides the outright lie of ‘something is broken and we don’t know what it is’, when clearly something is broken deliberately and whoever is behind it DOES know what it is. This has gone on for too long, too consistently, for Google not to know what it is. Who gives a Google robot the assignment of announcing to web-surfers located in Russia what amounts to an unspoken but matter of fact ‘sorry you can only read biased propaganda pieces and outright lies, because the system is ‘fixed.’ Central Intelligence Agency? Google, after all, practically sleeps with western intelligence.

It’s when encountering the preceding, one more than wonders at the veracity of claims it is Russia is the cyber-war boogeyman everywhere one looks… considering our liberal democracies obsession with controlling the narrative:

“Control over the narrative has more and more replaced truth seeking. It is the old Goebbels dictum: If you repeat the same lie over and over enough, it becomes the truth…

“Recent examples abound, but the golden egg prize goes to the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential elections to secure a victory for Donald Trump. This narrative was presented in January 2017, after the Trump victory but before his inauguration, in an intelligence community assessment. Go back and re-read that 25-page “narrative” today and you will be shocked. It contains no evidence, but relies on a pseudo-psychological profile of Russian President Vladimir Putin…

“In a methodological annex to the report, the authors acknowledged that they had no facts to back up their conclusions:

“”Estimative language consists of two elements: judgments about the likelihood of developments or events occurring and levels of confidence in the sources and analytic reasoning supporting the judgments. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents…””

Yes, dear reader, that’s our liberal democracies’ intelligence agencies, in a ‘cover your ass culture’, admitting ‘we make this shit up’

*

Concerning web-filters and google, the recent ‘delisting’ of naturalnews.com is example on its face of what the public will be allowed (or not) to find on the internet. Whether you like Scientologist mental whack-job Mike Adams site or not is besides the point; the point is what you will be allowed to find and who decides what you will NOT be allowed to find.

Google result for naturalnews.com (screenshot) provides no direct link to naturalnews.com:

google_filters-1

Russia’s Yandex result for naturalnews.com screenshot gives direct links to naturalnews.com as the top result:

yandex-unfiltered-1

 Just Be Evil: The Unauthorized History of Google:

Google won’t give you results? Yandex doesn’t mind in the least if you use Roman alphabet and English language search terms – yandex.ru –

Yandex

*

[CLICK HERE to continue watching the full video on Boiling Frogs Post.]

by James Corbett
BoilingFrogsPost.com
June 19, 2012

Google Inc. is back in the news this week, with a fresh round of headlines about the search giant and government censorship. Ironically–though perhaps not surprisingly for the corporate media–the stories are not about Google’s admitted but classified relationship with government agencies like the NSA, though. Instead, they portray the internet company as a protagonist sticking up for users’ privacy rights against governments that are increasingly interested in blocking, scrubbing or banning links, search results, and online videos that those governments want to suppress.

Under headlines like “Google reports ‘alarming’ rise in government censorship requests” and “Google Sees Surge in Censorship Demands,” writers for mainstream publications are dutifully outlining the results of a new Google Inc. transparency report detailing precisely how many times they have been petitioned by governments around the world to censor, block, or scrub material that they find unlawful or objectionable.

The report outlines, for instance, that the US government made 6,192 separate requests for Google to remove information from its services in the latter half of 2011, up from 757 requests in the first half of that year.

Other reports highlight government requests for Google to remove videos from YouTube, including the Thai governments’ request to remove access to hundreds of videos insulting the king (which Google complied with) and Canada’s request to remove a video of a Canadian flushing his passport down the toilet, which Google did not comply with.

The report makes clear that governments are increasingly turning to Google to expunge information that they don’t like–or at least access to that information–from the internet.

As a PR exercise, Google’s latest report is brilliantly executed and timed, deflecting some of the negative press that the company has received in recent weeks over the ongoing Street View debacle, even as it allows news outlets to portray the company as a valiant defender of users’ privacy against increasingly invasive governments. Conveniently left out of the equation is the company’s past, its own repeated violations and abuses of users’ privacy, and the unsettling statements that its executives have made about the very concept of privacy time and again over the years.

Google has always attempted to project itself as the white hat in the wild west of the modern internet. Cloaked in its cutesy “Don’t Be Evil” corporate slogan and its user-friendly design, the company has grown from a simple search engine into one of the largest assemblies of information in the history of the world without the type of scrutiny that one would expect during such a transformation.

The company sprang from PageRank, the end result of a 1996 research project by Stanford University graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin that helped users find relevant websites from search queries by counting incoming links to a site. From this simple idea, the pair created the first incarnation of their website on the Stanford University servers, then registered the google domain name in 1997 and incorporated in 1998.

The company had as its explicit goal, the quest to catalogue, organize, and make accessible the sum total of human knowledge, and was aided in this ambitious quest by successive rounds of venture capital funding. Within a decade, it had already made significant inroads on its quest for total information awareness, having branched out into 3D satellite mapping services, launched highly popular webmail and cloud storage services, created its own web browser, acquired YouTube, and branched into mobile technologies with the Android smartphone.

It is not precisely clear when the company caught the attention of America’s intelligence agencies, but high-level whistleblowers suggest it was early on in the company’s history. In a 2006 interview, ex-CIA agent Robert David Steele suggested that it was from the very outset.

“I think Google took money from the CIA when it was poor and it was starting up,” Steele said in the interview. “They’ve been together for quite a while.”

Steele also fingered the company’s point man in the CIA: Dr. Rick Steinheiser in the Office of Research and Development. No further information has been revealed about the precise nature of that relationship, but tidbits continue to emerge from time to time.

It was widely reported in 2010, for example, that Google was in a working relationship with the US National Security Agency. The donation-funded Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit requesting details of that relationship, but that suit was thrown out earlier this year. Details of the NSA/Google relationship are effectively classified.

There are also examples of the government-corporate revolving door that make observers of companies like Monsanto and Halliburton uneasy. It was reported earlier this year, for instance, that Regina Dugan of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would be leaving her post at the Pentagon to take up a senior executive position at Google.

Still, despite the growing amount of information that Google has over every aspect of the daily lives of its billion-plus unique monthly users, it has long avoided any serious scrutiny in the press. Initially sheltered by its “underdog” status in the fight against the tech giants like Apple and Microsoft, even the corporate press has been forced to cover the serious abuses that Google has inflicted on its users in recent years, as those abuses become more flagrant and less easily dismissible.

To the extent that mainstream news stories about Google even address these issues, it is inevitably in a throwaway quote toward the end of the article from someone who is dismissed as a “privacy advocate.” With information on the habits, thoughts, contacts, conversations, physical location, and even financial transactions of a sizable percentage of the population of the planet, however, it is not merely “privacy advocates” who are concerned about the information that the company handles and how it shares that data with governments. Indeed, for anyone who is familiar with the company, its background, its shareholders, or its executives’ personal philosophies, the questions of power that are inevitably raised by the staggering sums of data it holds on a growing percentage of the population are deeply troubling.

Like in so many other matters, however, what can never be mentioned is that the population does have a choice over how their information is used and collected. That information comes from choosing to use Google in the first place. There are plenty of alternative search engines that offer similar (if not identical) results to those offered by Google while simultaneously respecting users’ privacy and refusing to log IP addresses or other recognizable details of its users. There are alternative video sites, alternative email providers, and alternative browsers. By concentrating so much on Google, the press often makes it seem like there is no choice, and that we are all subject to the whims of this monolithic corporation and the whims of its executives as they roll out privacy changes by decree and conspire with government officials in secret.

Once again, it is up to the public to begin detaching themselves from this system and to stop feeding the Google behemoth with their data. By refusing to participate with the monopolization of the web, netizens can make it that much more difficult for their personal information to be bought, sold, or passed to greedy businessman or prying governments, and that much more difficult for videos like this one to be censored from the web.

*

Related: Urolagnetics

%d bloggers like this: