Wednesday, 12 December 2012, SAN FRANCISCO - Hardly a moment passes on North Korea's "atomic clock" that megalomaniac Zuckerboy at the helm (a la drunken sot Exxon Valdez Captain Hazelwood) of Facebook, or "Mugshot" as more popularly known in the so-called law "enforcement" community, and other viral social media cohort CIA-fronts Google, Twitter and lesser players in the war on Americans' fundamental privacy rights announce some new "privacy policies".
The Ninth Amendment's legal department scarcely is surprised to find these policies about as incomprehensible as impossible to decrypt when taken together as the latest "health" insurer "benefits" guide written exclusively by armies of hack two-bit lawyers with no healthcare knowledge whatsoever save further ripping off the American people for some mega-rich "health" insurer that dare not actually affix its name to the thousands of anonymous highrise towers insurance companies long have been known to own in downtown cities across the United States. (Hey Prudential, still own San Francisco's Embarcadero Center in a joint venture with the Rockefeller family?) That is, one is left with the overwhelming question (like T.S. Eliot), am I really getting something more here for my benefit, or am I actually losing even more rights and benefits at greater cost to me? The answer actually is not too difficult to predict at this point in the game.
The Ninth Amendment strongly recommends this above date's New York Times technology section to interested readers especially as rich in details of the latest hijinks of the viral media giants as well as many references to websites devoted to providing readers with free means of defeating at least some of the tracking mechanisms of these CIA tools. Needless to say the Ninth Amendment was horrified to see that even the once-venerable New York Times has joined the game of tracking its readers and in some cases merely visitors who do not even "click" on anything.
Readers are reminded to refrain from READING FREE UNLIMITED NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES SIMPLY BY SETTING FREE FIREFOX BROWSERS TO "PRIVATE BROWSING" NOR SHOULD THAT TECHNIQUE NO LONGER WORK TO REFRAIN FROM PERFORMING SIMPLE SEARCHES SUCH AS "DEFEATING NEW YORK TIMES PAYWALL".
Because of the rich material especially made available in this above date's Times to find websites dedicated to protecting readers' privacy including with free adjustments to different browser settings, the Ninth Amendment in its recognition of the importance of getting this material to press for the benefit of interested readers below provides the link to the main "Facebook" article which should lead resourceful readers to many of the tips for defeating viral social media privacy invasion practices. If but one life is saved....
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/facebook-changes-privacy-settings-again/
The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment submitted the following comment for publication in the digital edition of the above date's New York Times in response to the Times' request for comments on the linked preceding article. The comment later was published in the digital New York Times.
The Ninth Amendment's legal department scarcely is surprised to find these policies about as incomprehensible as impossible to decrypt when taken together as the latest "health" insurer "benefits" guide written exclusively by armies of hack two-bit lawyers with no healthcare knowledge whatsoever save further ripping off the American people for some mega-rich "health" insurer that dare not actually affix its name to the thousands of anonymous highrise towers insurance companies long have been known to own in downtown cities across the United States. (Hey Prudential, still own San Francisco's Embarcadero Center in a joint venture with the Rockefeller family?) That is, one is left with the overwhelming question (like T.S. Eliot), am I really getting something more here for my benefit, or am I actually losing even more rights and benefits at greater cost to me? The answer actually is not too difficult to predict at this point in the game.
The Ninth Amendment strongly recommends this above date's New York Times technology section to interested readers especially as rich in details of the latest hijinks of the viral media giants as well as many references to websites devoted to providing readers with free means of defeating at least some of the tracking mechanisms of these CIA tools. Needless to say the Ninth Amendment was horrified to see that even the once-venerable New York Times has joined the game of tracking its readers and in some cases merely visitors who do not even "click" on anything.
Readers are reminded to refrain from READING FREE UNLIMITED NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES SIMPLY BY SETTING FREE FIREFOX BROWSERS TO "PRIVATE BROWSING" NOR SHOULD THAT TECHNIQUE NO LONGER WORK TO REFRAIN FROM PERFORMING SIMPLE SEARCHES SUCH AS "DEFEATING NEW YORK TIMES PAYWALL".
Because of the rich material especially made available in this above date's Times to find websites dedicated to protecting readers' privacy including with free adjustments to different browser settings, the Ninth Amendment in its recognition of the importance of getting this material to press for the benefit of interested readers below provides the link to the main "Facebook" article which should lead resourceful readers to many of the tips for defeating viral social media privacy invasion practices. If but one life is saved....
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/facebook-changes-privacy-settings-again/
The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment submitted the following comment for publication in the digital edition of the above date's New York Times in response to the Times' request for comments on the linked preceding article. The comment later was published in the digital New York Times.
- BigMartin
- waronnothing
The editorial staff of the Ninth Amendment log at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com expresses no surprise at the apparent complete ignorance of Facebook, Google and the rest of the "viral social media" crowd of CIA child tools in their continuing demonstration of complete ignorance of the Bill of Rights in general and here in particular fundamental privacy protections identified at least as long ago as Mr. Justice Douglas' identification of "penumbras" of fundamental privacy rights in his seminal opinion Griswold v. Connecticut. Probably as a result of most of these one-dimensional ill-educated techno-geeks having dropped out of Ivy League schools (those who got in them in the first place) long before receiving a well-rounded education and considering perhaps even graduating given the almighty allure of the dollar to megalomaniac Zuckerboy and his fellow viral social media cohorts. But shame on the New York Times for playing along including with this most dangerous game of tracking American citizens -- or has it forgotten so quickly what absolutely vital protections the United States Constitution afforded it in, among other things, in [sic] its complete protection by the United States Supreme Court from "prior restraint" in the Pentagon Papers case? As they say, what goes around comes around.
Copyright 2012 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved (except as to New York Times content) 
