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

SAY THIS: When a Microsoft Biometrics Lobbyist Tries to Massage Army Led Mass Surveillance.

Dear Senator Schatz,

This is my response to news that you are leading up biometric legislation in the US Senate.

 As a former military dependent, I made a solemn promise to myself as a civilian, with no current relationship to the rules, protocols of the US military, I would never consent to militarized collection of my identity.  As the Senator of Hawaii, you must understand the amount of veterans and military household members quartered throughout your US island annex. Not all of them are there because they consented to being there.

I respect the position the US military, but there are [legal] limits to their domain and projected dominance. We know there are firms who will lobby you until every dime become a military dollar and every American becomes identified as an asset of the United States military.  I'm not as worried about them as I am the people who will protect the corrupt involved with obstructing a civilian's right to object to BIMA's collection of a US citizen civilian's biometrics under a trade transfer agreement.

The US Army is the patent holder for all US derivative biometric technology. If China and Russia are collecting US biometrics for their purposes - that is a possible patent violation and a threat to the personal rights of any identified US citizen. While this is noteworthy, it is not the main point of my communication here.

I, like all American citizens, may legally demand a stop and deletion today of the US Army's collection of my biometrics if/when it is collected without express consent by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple or any other commercial derivative provider of choice.

There are lobbyists who do not know that efforts to codify a legal obstruction to the Privacy Act of 1974 is an unenforceable attempt at lawmaking. I know because they have tried in my current state of residence, WA State. Kings of government trade transfer license rights are going to lose because they have lost cases to the Privacy Act. These cases concerned covert mass surveillance operations, whose vendors made attempts to hide behind an NDA in the courts. I urge you to stop entertaining these lobbyists. Inform your colleagues. Protect US citizens’ rights to deny the federal government nonexempt surveillance without a warrant or other legitimate government purpose.

BIMA may own the license, but the US Citizen owns themself.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

Feeding the Beast: Facebook and Its Government Trade Partners should conform transparently to common US consent law

By Sheila Dean

Consumer facing consent UI/UX and transparent third party data inventory could remedy the social network’s global fall from grace.  Far more work is ahead to produce a legitimate privacy enforcement environment.

Facebook’s neglect of third party vendor Cambridge Analytica crossed the line for its users. Unfortunately, social networks with poor third party operations security are everywhere. It was Facebook today, but it could be any number of poorly secured vendors tomorrow. Prior to this event, users and developers alike refused to face the nature of beast they are feeding.

Some form of regulatory intervention is in the offing. The US government is already deep in the core of Facebook’s operations for regulatory enforcement of an FTC consent decree. Facebook, like Palantir and others, also worked for the US government as big data analytics contractors in 2013’s PRISM scandal. Facebook has licensed deep profile information to the US government and any foreign government who would pay, including Russian social media operations. Special counsel Robert Mueller could easily ask FBI staffers embedded at Facebook’s HQ, if this was the collusion they were looking for. If the US government and its regulators are already so involved, regulation may be the lighter hand of justice. Users may need a criminal investigation into US government abuses of power, conflicts of interest, embezzlement or related crimes involving foreign entities. The more likely crime is one of banal disinterest in privacy law enforcement.

Facebook is the beast US corporatism built. The US government, afterall, is still an investor in Facebook. How do we get shareholders, like the CIA, to conform to American privacy law provisions and boundaries? As partial owner, the US government may have access to any of its information assets. What does it mean if a US agency profited from data services rendered to Russia for psychological operations? The potential for abuse is now material fact, if it is not the scene of a crime of opportunity.

Facebook’s policy problem lies in a one-size-fits-all EULA contract allowing complete opacity of its vendors. The blanket consent from one Terms of Service contract hardly covers the third party range where personal data was processed by Cambridge for resale to political operatives. The average consumer does not know who has their data once it goes into a social network. If Facebook showed consumers the edge advertising market for their data as notification, they would be legally required to provide means of express consent to license their personal data.

Facebook, like many online services, needs to get out of partisan and government information business lines or the elections intrigues will continue. It’s time to ask US government agencies, like the DoD and CIA, to surrender their shares in public ISP companies back to the free market. Their co-ownership in private data conflicts with public interest.  Public trade transfer deals featuring government licensed technologies should not be opaque to the US consumer when their personal information is involved in a trade.

Third party risk and liability will still be a problem for society online. Legal enforcement is needed to limit the scope of exchange and sale of personal data based on legitimately sourced and applied US consumer consent. Facebook, and those emulating its brazen business model, should now comply to better defined, transparent data inventory mapping for users to knowingly permit, or more likely deny, unwanted third party exchanges.

We can forgive Facebook as an institution for being led down the wrong path, endorsed and coddled by government insiders. Some later revealed themselves in full view of the public as disgraceful sycophants, soliciting Mark Zuckerberg's permissions and favors, during Congressional disciplinary hearings. Government beneficiaries managed to evade legal consent notice requirements which do, in fact, apply to any information they collect on US Citizens. Board members from the most celebrated privacy non-profits, think tanks, and policy advisors with doctorates from the best universities in the United States have consulted Facebook. Who can help Facebook if their elite battery of advisors endorsed the fantasy they can break US common consent law with no consequences? 

GET LITTLE CAESAR A TOWEL, PLEASE.

It does seem everyone around Facebook is telling them they are so useful and exceptional they don’t have to conform to the law. That line of doctrine misled Facebook to be used as a powerful social tool to connect the world with corruption. They broke laws. Unfortunately, they didn’t do it by themselves. They had lots of enablers and government partners urging them on.

Information security and integrity audits will send any phony fixer lawyers and their marketing apologist firms packing.  One could speculate Facebook's cyber-insurance rates are expected to skyrocket. As we wait on the results of Facebook’s audit, they will confront fines, more civil suits, possible company insolvency and criminal due process for its lack of restraint. Regulatory law enforcement should work to close privacy law enforcement gaps. Their current presence inside Facebook failed to enforce fair, lawful security of private data. 

Even if the government reforms the enforcement conventions for impacted privacy, will fair trade practices emerge from the ashes to cover global data brokerage exchanges? Non-profit interest groups and companies cannot just scuttle away a people's inherent data ownership rights because these rights didn't originate with their nation state or they seem inconvenient to consider. Identity sovereignty is natural and inherent to our humanity. Administrators are talking over each other instead of to each other across the globe and then stony radio silence follows. This conflict is based on differences over the origin of rights in personal data governance. There is very little real debate or statesmanship on this idea.

So here is a working 5 point public policy fix to confront international data exchange stakeholders, as well as US agencies, not playing fair with data owners.

• Close enforcement gaps and actively enforce existing privacy law concerning notice & consent.
• Require government partners and non-profits (partisans, research firms) to self-identify to consumers in UX/UI transactions; which legally require notice and consent (like trade transfer deals).
• Adopt or enact Right To Be Forgotten policy in the US.
• Recognize the rights of the individual Data Owner in business reporting with monthly exchange statements as an audit requirement as a matter of human rights and fair trade.  If you can’t manage to bring in the data owner as part of your business, consulting them on how much to sell their data for, who to authorize as a  seller and reseller to and how to sell it, you’re in the wrong business.
• Recognize essential individual data ownership is paramount to rights of government transfer entitlement and/or embargo thereof. For the US, that is conformance to Privacy Act of 1974 provisions to actively procure and heed individual consent preferences in most cases. For other governments, that means they need to get express consent to profit from personal data of a US citizen using public platform services.

Individual data ownership rights are not in conflict with other rights and can stand with other recognized rights. Particularly, that of self-defense, protection from theft of labor and the diverse perils of slavery, human trafficking and unfair trade practices. We are not the middle man to be cut from the exchanges. Data owners are in fact used and spent as the monetary currency itself. Current exchanges brokering personal data are in an adverse power differential contrary to Principle One of Fair Trade Practices. They are more on par with serfdom. Facebook’s serfs are Exhibit A of a raw deal. Now the world needs a fair trade upgrade.

---

SOURCES:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/your-facebook-data-archive-wont-really-show-everything-facebook-knows-about-you/

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/facebook-scraped-call-text-message-data-for-years-from-android-phones/

https://vimeo.com/258718414/ca4bbc0091?submissionGuid=633b57b3-cabc-4dcd-af5f-6090d9bb1501

http://globalitc.bakermckenzie.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Global%20ITC/13%20Game%20Changers/BM-Data%20Mapping%20under%20the%20GDPR%20and%20Beyond.pdf

ConsentCheq - http://www.consentcheq.com/index.php/training/

https://www.slashgear.com/thousands-of-android-apps-violate-child-privacy-says-study-15527433/

https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2018/04/understanding-improving-privacy-audits-under-ftc-orders

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-palantir-peter-thiel/

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/new-survey-finds-deep-consumer-anxiety-over-data-privacy-and-security-1021389712

December News Digest: Chapter Release this Winter at Patreon

MOTIVATIONAL MOMENTS

“When you’re going through hell, keep going…”

– Winston Churchill

THE BAD NEWS - YOU STILL LIVE ON A HACKED PLANET

Privacy is a battered area across many forays in our society. I managed to catch the Congressional hearings on the Equifax breach. I heard the head of Equifax (US) say to Congress, “I wonder what are we trying to protect anymore?”

I think that became the most challenging moment for me in 2017, both as consumer and personal data protection advocate.   I realized demoralizing the privacy interests of every individual was someone’s goal. If your opponent couldn’t lawfully achieve that, as if you had no legal recourse or protection from their infringements, they still seek to bombard you, networks and infrastructures with smaller privacy breaches, to desensitize you to the negative effects. Why? To break down your resistance with frustration and demotivation, so you fail to fight back over your personal data property and your privacy.  

Americans are in a double bind, of sorts. We are held underneath a public-private mass surveillance aperture; which won’t relinquish much power back to the individual.  Part of the infrastructure capitalizes on voter information brokerage.  Another part forces or incentivizes private social media to do government surveillance work on the people who feel compelled to use it.  You have an opportunity to use your voice, to direct Congressional leaders to Sunset Section 702 of the warrantless surveillance act, FISA. A bill to renew it has been filed.  There is a lot of fight for you and US privacy rights in that fight.

Every day you wake up you are the Data Owner, not merely the Data Subject, a victim of theft or a serf in someone’s digital fiefdom. 

Grasp this and you have a future to self determine your privacy.

THE GOOD NEWS -PUBLISHING IS HAPPENING!

IEEE is releasing 2nd edition of Ethically Aligned Design, Ethics in Action  12/12/2017.  I contributed to the Consent section.  I also have joined other IEEE data ethics subgroup P7003 –(Addressing)Bias producing content, curating research and being helpful to ethical data standards development.  You can read the ethics production from end-t0-end here. [Updated 2/22/2018] 

'REBALANCE PRIVACY' SLUG-MARATHON 2018.

Yes. So slow.  Good solutions take time.

I have finally found my self-publishing house to produce chapters; which include privacy-accountability hacks, letters and templates to stay organized and to fight back.  The plan is to produce the initiate select chapter around February.  You can purchase directly from this website or my Patreon page.  There is a placeholder live under the 'Authoring' tab for the 2018 release.

Please tell all of your friends. (If your friends have great publishers market skills, send them my way!)

Do you have news or a personal story of how you overcame a privacy infringement?  Please write to me.  I would like to do a feature on you and demonstrate your talent.

Happy Holidays and warm wishes of confidentiality in 2018.