US Intersectionality Policies Translate to A Global Power Struggle to Control Pricing of Harmonized Data

NEWS AGENCY ADVISORY  

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
ATTN: Opinion Editorial News Editors, News Managers 

HEADER: US Intersectionality Policies Translate to A Global Power Struggle to Control Pricing of
Harmonized Data [for Multinational Currency Exchanges vs. US Data Privacy Interests]

SUB HEADER: US citizens have something in common with suppressed populations in India and China. They are locked out of pricing or managing the license of their personal data collected by multinational tech monopolies. BRICS nations may devalue their citizens’ identity-as-currency. Hierarchy value of race and ability information is core to intersectionality policy doctrine. BRICS identity currency valuations should not determine price controls of US data by US citizens, acting as data owners, using intersectionality doctrine as rule. The doctrine has no appointed US monetary authority and no agreement for its use metric by the US data owner. 

DEFINITIONS: Identity, more generally known as marketing demographics, are synonymous in use here.

Identity parameters used for monetary exchange rates as BRICS currency are valued based on party affiliation, race, ability, profession, age, class, gender, etc.

WHERE: Data governance impacts the legal interpretation of ownership and identity exchange based on where US information is processed.  For instance, privacy law and biometric governance changes based on which nation is processing or storing American information. If US information is gathered using foreign (CCP, EU, UK, India) technologies or SAAS it may be processed underneath their version of privacy, biometric and technology law. 

WHAT: Intersectionality cultural policies are being advanced in US civic dialects nationwide. North American pluralism is not a new idea. Intersectionality is new for its ability to distill discriminatory values to US pluralism into Excel formulaic functions. This articulates monetized data subdivisions for an inextricably diverse melting pot. Intersectionality policies are not necessarily for the United States, so much as they are for Asia where institutional racism has been entrenched for millennia to control economic values attributed to identity; which now includes the biometric and health profile data of underage children in the US.  

WHO: China, India and financial technology associates with BRICS currency interests are introducing monetary hierarchy to administrate value interpretations of American pluralism. 

WHEN: Currently

WHY: To control the pricing rates of US identity markers-as-data and assign a value to integrated North American populations. US pluralism cannot be translated to FOREX based on Han supremacy rules or India’s caste systems as economic markers. An agenda emerges to establish a cultural articulation of “intersectionality” to streamlines these values. They may seek to harmonize global data trading values for multinational business processes based on intersectionality doctrine definitions, driven by US leftist policy adopted by US tech companies. These should face US DOJ antitrust investigations based on widespread price-fixing of US data and theft of personal information for use as personal and government capital abroad as a matter of secured national interest.

US citizens and residents own their data property. The matter of unit-based pricing of their personal logistics for marketing and advertising purposes, based on commercial surveillance access, is how technology companies make money. The fact that US data owners cannot control the pricing and access of their property is a key antitrust matter that impacts US privacy interests across the globe. 

Think of how intersectionality looks on the spreadsheet of a data processor in London, Hong Kong or Mumbai. The technical monetary values are subject to change based on location. In order to control the values, someone in multilateral monetary policy chain wants to determine a fixed global value of all transactional identity, that includes US citizens involuntarily priced into global FOREX exchanges of their data. 

HOW: Laundering intersectionalist doctrine as brute force administrative mandate; as harmonized patent and internal trade company policy at technology companies using identity, such as biometrics; as applied national security policy for “privacy and security”, and US based cultural programs to indoctrinate media influencers and civic officials to universalize definitions of value. They produce community policy, drafted model law and administrative rules using sympathetic leftists, communitarian political interests, US Democratic officials who take contributions from global multinationals and who represent large number of CCP and Indian owned businesses in their districts on H1BV work Visas, pro-mass surveillance national security interests, US major business and technology partners like Microsoft, Apple, NIKE, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon et.al and global media partners reliant on data trade captures to do business using advanced lawfare and media representation PR firms. 

FOR THE EDITORS: US identity policy is a sovereign national matter, one of self-determination and personal freedom for the United States citizen and identified North American national. The courts have ruled against bulk mass surveillance to the benefit of anyone in the multinational business ecosystem. US data property interests need to be recognized by the US court system, for all data is being licensed in an inverted, and often completely unfair, Terms of Service contract. To use and license personal information for profit and intelligence by unaffiliated 3rd parties does not serve the interests of the US national data owner. 

For further comment and insight, please contact Sheila Dean, via secured contact at https://www.SheilaMDean.com

###

Sheila Dean is an author and privacy consultant based in Washington State. She is a thought leader and policy maker on privacy and identity, and regularly promotes privacy policy protections. Her online series Privacy Is a Spider is for people who want to adopt an individual privacy plan to reclaim their personal data. You can learn more at https://www.SheilaMDean.com.

EXAMPLES AND SOURCES: 

What intersectionality doctrine looks like to most Americans: https://medium.com/@movie_pundit/thepainfully-obvious-intersectionality-of-the-united-states-of-america-e8aec49fb78c

What actionable or potential recent policy laundering of “intersectionality” identity value rules looks like:

Example: Microsoft is patenting a biometrics worker software program to calculate productivity to contribute to a social score.  So far as I know, the West doesn't use a social scoring system. However, if China requires them to do so, they will acquire one in the course of business. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55133141?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRnMllUZGlORGRqTlRnMiIsInQiOiJmVjROekRTb1ZhM0ptMStJTnNt YUdaSkVqQkFkajRcL0RFRVdLZ3VEZE9hQXJRbmlyTncwbzZVSXUrdlBrVTlJNUU2OW9qTTRXY npaY2s1YUU2QW8rTWh2RHVsRkxqTGNTOWx4QktGV1FZclBIb0laWlhcL3A2OHVLZ1NjMjk5Yit MIn0%3D

Example: "Rent-A-Wonk", at national security research think tanks, to interpose China's preferred judiciary policy-as-US national security policy applied to US commercial privacy law.  Their currency is backed with by data currencies like Bitcoin and other FOREX futures. So, they have a stake in how data is processed legally in the US. India, has traders here and wants more influence in the rate or speed of data transfers, so money can be faster, more competitive globally.  This article was placed at the Wall Street journal Opinion page, by an authoritative source, Robert Williams.

"Robert Williams is the executive director of the Paul Tsai China Center and a senior research scholar and lecturer at Yale Law School. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter provide financial support to the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit organization devoted to rigorous, independent, in-depth public policy research. "

https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/to-enhance-data-security-federal-privacy-legislation-is-just-a-
start/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRnMllUZGlORGRqTlRnMiIsInQiOiJmVjROekRTb1ZhM0ptMStJTnNtYUdaSkVqQkFkajRcL0RFRVdLZ3VEZE9hQXJRbmlyTncwbzZVSXUrdlBrVTlJNUU2OW9qTTRXYnpaY2s1YUU2QW8rTWh2RHVsRkxqTGNTOWx4QktGV1FZclBIb0laWlhcL3A2OHVLZ1NjMjk5YitMIn0%3D

Why Facial Recognition is Not Limited to Microsoft Governance

[As submitted to the IAPP]

Dear Editors,

I listed constituent objections to Microsoft running up the privacy flag here.

Facial Recognition Technology and other commercialized versions of biometrics were driven by the will of DARPA investors to get their money and mass surveillance intelligence back to the Department of Defense. While I realize this is under-reported, you should understand that the millions of DoD civilian servants, their dependents, veterans and active service members are all familiar with base mandates for use and employment requirements of biometric ID. There is literally a standing army of non consenting Americans who were compelled to use biometrics in public service. Do not underestimate what they have to tell the public about FRT or any other biometric technology.

Whatever this is about, it's not about Julie Brill. When she carried the USG, she was impotent against [Obama’s] NatSec forces, PRISM and violence to 4th Amendment, as FTC head. [So will be all FTC agency heads. This is a principled reason why “privacy” cannot be a consumer matter delegated to the FTC. DoD and DNI overreach and employment of the private sector will continue, as federal contractors. While predictably uncaring anti-personal liberty Berkeley CS grads, local Communitarians standing behind the Lenin statue in Seattle’s Fremont district, DSA lefitists, and Obama “flat earthers” make their nests on mass surveillance, China scraped everyone. Brill, like many Obama supporters, now carries the burdensome voting record of tacit support of his mass surveillance plan. She cannot carry the flag of public trust from those whom she failed in America’s computing contractor. That leaves the very hard policy work to the people who have to live with what Washington State permits as law.]

Sincerely,

Sheila Dean

NYTimes Editorial Tries Victim Blaming As Consumer Protection Strategy

Dear Editors,


This NYTimes ’Opinion Editorial sends an error signal.

It's not voiced enough: as data generation is a natural byproduct of technical use, no company CEO would die if [they] did not sell consumer surveillance. That inverted power differential comes from another area of our society: government, specifically, first funders at DARPA and the Department of Defense who put onereous weaponization uses on any technology they create, fund or license. Facial Recognition is one BIMA licensed technology.

The Army and it's First Party contractors, Microsoft and possibly Amazon, suggest such sweeping public capture is for your benefit and your personal security. Nevermind the pesky fact, that the government literally violates its reason for being by asking corporations to do their job for them and then sell the data to them. It does not make us more secure when China, and other rogue nation states can steal our technology from the private sector, derived from US military patents, break our technical layers of security and then park an advanced persistent threat AI in the networks to just hoover up as much individual intelligence they can on our citizens- because we decided to do it first!!

If they can't protect it, they shouldn't collect it.


The other point, past it's not legal for the federal government to commit mass surveillance, is the consumer owns themselves and any data which comes from marketing their likeness. Companies don't like it when I assert this, but it's totally true.

As I own myself, as property owner, there is something fundamentally flawed in asking me to submit to a digital contract that states: I shall rent data peep shows to [unknowable faceless 3rd party] through the phone I own, not see the rental price or price of admission to the peep show because,"It's proprietary". It sounds like larceny and a recipe for a human trafficking scam. In fact, it sounds like the reasoning of someone in the throes of psychological projection.

I am not in any way consenting to mass surveillance by using a mobile phone. The unethical engineers ordered to weaponize ordinary means of communication and its byproduct data into a mass surveillance aperture according to spec are only partially at fault. The order was given by policy administrators to use economic lawfare as coercion (as social engineering, suitcases of cash to Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon - whatever works) for foreign intelligence gathering on the American people. If you believe the contrary, you're a simpleton for sending your taxes to pay to undermine your rights without contest.

###

In other news, Dustin Volz.

Imagine a World Where Privacy Law is Enforced…By You.

‘Obstruction of justice’ is also refusing to enforce privacy law when there is a clear and present danger to the public

 

My 2020 weapon of choice is honesty.  To be blunt, this will be, at least, the second Washington State session I witnessed an open secret. Microsoft, a corporation underneath a 20 year consent decree for privacy violations and unfair practice, sent in Brad Smith and his public policy team to write up the privacy law it can live with for the State of Washington.  Of course, the legislation, faithfully chanelled by Senator Carlyle, is a milquetoast privacy placcard to soothe global regulators in Europe and prevent scare of Chinese/Canadian investors away with any kind of law enforcement.

The chair of the Consumer Protection Committee won’t take up  privacy as a consumer protection matter.  The Chair of the House Public Safety Committee indicates corruption by way of corporatism for lack of law enforcement means with toothsome privacy laws like: HIPPA, COPPA, the Drivers License Protection Act and of course, my pet favorite to reign in federally funded mass surveillance, the Privacy Act of 1974. 

“That’s only applies to federal matters, right?”  

Yes, Representative, that’s right. If the State of Washington accepts federal funding for their police work, mass spectrum wireless/ IOT/smartphone surveillance, biometric capture and analysis systems at U.S. borders and anything else usually rubber stamped for appropriations in a CROmnibus package headed for WA State, including traffic cameras, geolocation devices and ALPR … a  United States Citizen may write their Microsoft Federal first party data controller and tell them to stop collection and schedule destruction of their data. Then Microsoft has to do it. Kind of takes the air out of those Q2 projections based on trade transfer mandates and DOD “research” bids.

In a quantum reality where I actually have a reasonable expectation of privacy, Microsoft, and other serial privacy violators underneath FTC conformance orders, would get chased out of Consumer Protection and appropriations offices by capitol security for fear of guilt associations. Government workers would sit around and talk about how the FBI’s malfeasance division actually busted someone they knew, who went to jail for licensing access to siloed public data to third party political actors. The scandal would have displaced several Senators and key members of the US Congress for accepting bribes, gifts and any other kind of persuasion to obstruct justice or enforcement of privacy laws.

The current lawmaking class behaves as if there were no recollection of life before 2007, FISA or the Bush regime’s suppression of US 4th Amendment rights and freedoms. They act as if privacy law was never enforceable. Formerly, so many businesses were utterly terrified of running afoul of privacy law because it was so strong and punitive, with both stiff civil and criminal penalties. 

Now, of course, all we have is non-law enforcement-enforcement from the FTC, who  will whine after protection orders gavell down that, “It wasn’t strong enough!!”  In the meantime,  Salim, Salabim  the CFO for CRIME CORPORATION whips out a magic checkbook and pays The Man. NEXT!!

No. Clearly, there is a breakdown in law enforcement of privacy law. It’s time for jail. It ain’t consumer protection until the CFAA violators who poached the Children’s Hospital credentials from Estonia or Kabul goes to jail and the obese infosec lead, whose keyboard is covered in Doritos powdered cheese and apathy, also serves some time … for not giving a damn.

Did I get it wrong perhaps? Let’s try another scenario then. In this scenario, the risk-analysis team who greenlit COPPA violations for smartphones would get perp walked on the 7 PM news. TMZ  PM edition sports the mugshots of marketing leads who used to work at AT&T and Disney now in jail for not allowing perfectly enforceable law to be their North Star, opposed to licensing the information of 7 year olds to anyone who would pay.

My law enforcement and white collar crackdown fantasy continues as a massive public-private sting soon demonstrates several K Street fixer firms implicated, along with at least 40% of seated US Congress in publican data price fixing, profiteering, extortion, larceny, menacing and obstruction of justice busts.  The scope goes global as Interpol reaches deep into UK leadership, Italy, Israel and China with extradition orders to stand witness and submit records at the Hague for global privacy violation, human rights violations and kleptocratic enrichment.

Then people howling from all violations fill the streets to celebrate the takedown of the Panopticon’s machines. Ribbons and tickertape fill the streets as people manufacture some new Free People’s festival on the spot. Busking DJs and musicians magically show up. Hackey sack and street food vendors flock to the occasion. Local business regulators fold their arms and say, “Meh. We will get them at tax time.” Police and Fire volunteer for overtime pay and point citizens to Waste Management areas where post-surveillance State scrap merchants fight over the City waste, while others take selfies and pose over the junk heap for the Kiss cam on Instagram.  Old radio production engineers show up with tape recording magnets and drills to charge for erasure, so they can retire.  Amen.

 Who knows?  Maybe it can all happen. 

However, today I will ask the God of Personal Justice to please ban companies, still underneath the FTC for privacy violation, from writing law and to withdraw their legislative proposals for “privacy reforms” and then usher in a law era with such enforceable ferocity in both civil and criminal court, no company will be dumb enough to violate it.