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 EFF and CDT May Not Advocate for Individual Private Right of Action

Google is suing to funnel individual user remunerations, awarded by courts, to EFF, CDT. Data owners should speak up for themselves now in small claims court.

 

By Sheila Dean

 

For many years, I wondered why Democratic leaning nonprofits like Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and EFF, former coalition colleagues in the privacy field, overlooked and entirely ignored the Privacy Act of 1974 in public education efforts against mass surveillance. It represents an important consumer civil right: the individual right to tell the government to stop processing personal data for non-exempt government uses. They kept mum during the entire Obama administration about this law and only filed a mea culpa amicus brief this Summer based on some recent personal rights violations.

This particular right gets down to hairsplitting among judges, like potential Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Ars Technica reported statements during Kavanaugh’s confirmation indicating he would side with any corporation’s rights to collect mass data on behalf of the government for their unique purposes.  Unfortunately, unless the normative T-mobile or Verizon informs the customer that they may refuse exchanges of personal data to government agencies (such as the Department of Education, NASA, DARPA, the Geospatial Intelligence Agency) by expressly denying consent to share data with them, Kavanaugh would allow businesses and nonprofits to launder consumer consent tacitly to government transactions. This bypass would treat government actors as a 3rd party data processors.  No warrant necessary. That is why the Privacy Act of 1974 and filing a small claims suit is more important than ever.

According to Media Post, data owners were represented in a class action lawsuit involving Google. Google is suing to send remunerations to nonprofits rather than the data owners or users impacted in the case. We never hear about users who never received an award from their position in the case of privacy, until now. EFF and CDT seem motivated by a win to get Google’s largesse funnel to go to their work. It is likely this is not the first or last time you will see a non-profit, like the ACLU, go in for a civil suit win to collect funding for their non-profit work. You will have to wait until Halloween to hear users vouch toward whether they were actually offered their court award or if feral feudal administrators between these non-profits and Google made decisions for their digital serfs. Google, aware of mass scale of privacy violations, changed its corporate classification in 2017 from an Incorporated public company to a Limited Liability Company incorporation (LLC), because of the mounting volume of lawsuits landing on them due to ongoing willful privacy violations.

That is why I am actively advocating and proclaiming that each data owner impacted by a personal privacy violation file a small claims suit against company or nonprofit data license violators. This means, 501c3’s (like the EFF, CDT or the ‘Church of Google’) or 501c4s (like a political party, partisan political campaign, or a Political Action Committee) also can be taken to small claims courts. You can even take your local government to small claims court for privacy violations. You may even file privacy violations claims against the federal government in your local District Court.

This process is given overview in my current work Privacy Is A Spider; A Guide to Rebalance Private Living, Chapter 2: Droping in From Above, currently available for download at Gumroad.com. Companies with history of serial privacy violations won’t stop violating your rights. You have to stop them and make them pay. Small claims has the power to order anyone who has processed against your consent cease and desist. The courts need to see you self advocate with the legal means you have; which is possibly $15 and a court appearance with your local version of Judge Judy.

Each data owner has a private right of action to make each of these companies or entities pay for their violations of your consent rights and to collect any profits made from involuntary exchange your data, whether it is only $74 or $.74.  If you want to win your privacy case, you will have a higher likelihood in small claims court. The political class won’t reign them in quickly.  You have to do it. There is no real privacy movement if you are not making the legal decisions that matter about your privacy.

 

3 STRONG REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD USE SMALL CLAIMS FOR ANY CORPORATE OR NON-PROFIT PRIVACY VIOLATION

  • Build case law history against violators; which mounts against their lobbying efficacy with agencies like the FTC and the SEC.

  • Win the unique knowledge and access to the transactional trade path of your personal information without the mass invasive process of a Superior Court legal case with your name on it.

  • Be awarded profits from the unapproved licensing of your personal information and private data. (This keeps self-involved lawyers at non-profits from collecting awards made on small bill privacy violations.)