Cookies ◀ We've updated our policy. Learn More.

Cookies & Other Storage Technologies

Cookies are small pieces of text used to store information on web browsers. Cookies are used to store and receive identifiers and other information on computers, phones, and other devices. Other technologies, including data we store on your web browser or device, identifiers associated with your device, and other software, are used for similar purposes. In this policy, we refer to all of these technologies as “cookies.”

We use cookies if you have a Facebook account, use the Facebook Services, including our website and apps (whether or not you are registered or logged in), or visit other websites and apps that use the Facebook Services (including the Like button or our advertising tools). This policy explains how we use cookies and the choices you have.

Return to top

Why do we use cookies?

Cookies help us provide, protect and improve the Facebook Services, such as by personalizing content, tailoring and measuring ads, and providing a safer experience. While the cookies that we use may change from time to time as we improve and update the Facebook Services, they generally fall into the below categories of use:

Authentication

We use cookies to verify your account and determine when you’re logged in so we can make it easier for you to access the Facebook Services and show you the appropriate experience and features.

For example: We use cookies to keep you logged in as you navigate between Facebook pages. Cookies also help us remember your browser so you do not have to keep logging into Facebook and so you can more easily log into Facebook via third-party apps and websites.

Security, site and product integrity

We use cookies to help us keep your account, data and the Facebook Services safe and secure.

For example: Cookies can help us identify and impose additional security measures when someone may be attempting to access a Facebook account without authorization, for instance, by rapidly guessing different passwords. We also use cookies to store information that allows us to recover your account in the event you’ve forgotten your password or to require additional authentication if you tell us your account has been hacked.

We also use cookies to combat activity that violates our policies or otherwise degrades our ability to provide the Facebook Services.

For example: Cookies help us fight spam and phishing attacks by enabling us to identify computers that are used to create large numbers of fake Facebook accounts. We also use cookies to detect computers infected with malware and to take steps to prevent them from causing further harm. Cookies also help us prevent underage people from registering for Facebook accounts.

Advertising, insights and measurement

We use cookies to help us show ads for businesses and other organizations to people who may be interested in the products, services or causes they promote.

For example: Cookies allow us to help deliver ads to people who have previously visited a business’s website, purchased its products or used its apps. Cookies also allow us to limit the number of times that you see an ad so you don’t see the same ad over and over again.

We also use cookies to help measure the performance of ad campaigns for businesses that use the Facebook Services.

For example: We use cookies to count the number of times an ad is shown and to calculate the cost of those ads. We also use cookies to measure how often people do things like click on or view ads.

Cookies help us serve and measure ads across different browsers and devices used by the same person.

For example: We can use cookies to prevent you from seeing the same ad over and over again across the different devices that you use.

Cookies also allow us to provide insights about the people who use the Facebook Services, as well as, the people who interact with the ads, websites, and apps of our advertisers and the businesses that use the Facebook Services.

For example: We use cookies to help businesses understand the kinds of people who like their Facebook page or use their apps so they can provide more relevant content and develop features that are likely to be interesting to their customers.

We also use cookies to help you opt out of seeing ads from Facebook based on your activity on third-party websites. Learn more about the information we receive, how we decide which ads to show you on and off the Facebook Services, and the controls available to you.

Site features and services

We use cookies to enable the functionality that helps us provide the Facebook Services.

For example: Cookies help us store preferences, know when you’ve seen or interacted with Facebook Services’ content, and provide you with customized content and experiences. For instance, cookies allow us to make suggestions to you and others, and to customize content on third-party sites that integrate our social plugins. If you are a page administrator, cookies allow you to switch between posting from your personal FB account and the page.

We also use cookies to help provide you with content relevant to your locale.

For example: We store information in a cookie that is placed on your browser or device so you will see the site in your preferred language.

Performance

We use cookies to provide you with the best experience possible.

For example: Cookies help us route traffic between servers and understand how quickly Facebook Services load for different people. Cookies also help us record the ratio and dimensions of your screen and windows and know whether you’ve enabled high contrast mode, so that we can render our sites and apps correctly.

Analytics and research

We use cookies to better understand how people use the Facebook Services so that we can improve them.

For example: Cookies can help us understand how people use the Facebook Service, analyze which parts of the Facebook Services people find most useful and engaging, and identify features that could be improved.

Return to top

Where do we use cookies?

We may place cookies on your computer or device, and receive information stored in cookies, when you use or visit:

• The Facebook Services;
• Services provided by other members of the Facebook family of companies; and
• Services provided by other companies that use the Facebook Services (such as companies that incorporate the Like button or Facebook’s advertising services into their websites and apps).

We may also set and receive information stored in cookies from other domains used by the Facebook family of companies, including the adtmt.com, liverail.com and Instagram.com domains.

Return to top

Do other parties use cookies in connection with the Facebook Services?

Yes, other parties may use cookies on the Facebook Services to provide services to us and the businesses that advertise on Facebook.

For example, our measurement partners use cookies on the Facebook Services to help advertisers understand the effectiveness of their Facebook advertising campaigns and to compare the performance of those campaigns to ads displayed on other websites and apps. Learn more about the companies that use cookies on the Facebook Services.

Third parties also use cookies on their own sites and apps in connection with the Facebook Services. To understand how other parties use cookies, please review their policies.

Return to top

How can you control Facebook’s use of cookies to show you ads?

One of the ways we use cookies is to show you useful and relevant ads on and off Facebook. You can control how we use data to show you ads by using the tools described below.

If you have a Facebook Account:

• You can use your ad preferences to learn why you’re seeing a particular ad and control how we use information we collect to show you ads.
• Some of the ads you see are based on your activity on websites and apps beyond the Facebook family of companies. We call this online interest-based advertising. You can control whether you see online interest-based ads from Facebook in your ad settings.
• The Facebook Audience Network is a way for advertisers to show you ads in apps and websites beyond the Facebook family of companies. One of the ways Audience Network shows relevant ads is by using your ad preferences to determine which ads you may be interested in seeing. You can control this in your ad settings.

Everyone:

You can opt out of seeing online interest-based ads from Facebook and other participating companies through the Digital Advertising Alliance in the US, the Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada in Canada, or theEuropean Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance in Europe or through your mobile device settings.

More information about online advertising:

The advertising companies we work with generally use cookies and similar technologies as part of their services. To learn more about how advertisers generally use cookies and the choices they offer, you can review the following resources:

• Digital Advertising Alliance
• Digital Advertising Alliance of Canada
• European Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance

Browser cookie controls:

In addition, your browser or device may offer settings that allow you to choose whether browser cookies are set and to delete them. For more information about these controls, visit your browser or device's help material. Certain parts of the Facebook Services may not work properly if you have disabled browser cookie use.

Date of Last Revision: May 26, 2

Bluetooth Hacking is becoming a serious problem

Do you know how vulnerable your mobile phone and other Bluetooth devices are for attacks when you walk around with Bluetooth enabled?

Many people believe that their mobile phone cannot be hacked because Bluetooth is such a short-range communication method, but the fact is that hackers can easily connect and manipulate your mobile phone within a range of 10-15 meters simply by using a Bluetooth connection. The hacking process is easy for hackers, because all they need is special software on their mobile phones, laptops or netbooks in addition to some basic knowledge.

Today's mobile phones have Bluetooth by default for wireless headsets, in-car connection, computer syncing and several other uses.

While we enjoy the use of Bluetooth for making purchases, for storing private data, critical personal and financial information, we also allow hackers access to our sensitive information when we forget to disable Bluetooth after use.

A mobile phone is like a mini-computer, and just like computers have always been susceptible for attacks, the same is now true for mobile phones and mobile devices. Bluetooth provides a perfect entry point for manipulation when it is enabled, because it is broadcastings to all other Bluetooth-based devices within range that: “hello, contact me, I am activated!“ And you cannot imagine how easy it is for the hackers to get control over your phone, headset or netbook when you are in a public place; in a bar, restaurant, train station or on a bus.

The hacker who has special software installed on his mobile phone, laptop, or netbook will know which ones to target very easily. All the hacker has to do is to walk around among people in public places and let his electronics do all the work or he can sit down in a hotel reception or restaurant pretending that he is working, while no one has any idea of what is happening.

polarbears-healthy

The whole process is automated for the hacker, because the software he is using will scan nearby surroundings for active Bluetooth connections, and when it finds them it can do a variety of things without the owner having any idea of what is going on.

When the hacker's software finds and connects to a Bluetooth-enabled cell phone, it can download contact information, phone numbers, calendars, photos, SIM-card details, make free long-distance phone calls, bug phone-calls and even do a lot of damage.

On Internet is a myriad of free software for Bluetooth hackers, and even videos showing them how to install the software and tips about “how to hack”.

The hacking possibilities are virtually endless, and below are listed a few examples of what can be done by a hacker once your mobile is hacked.

“Bluesnarfing” means unauthorized access for downloading (stealing) all information from a hacked device. It can even allow the hacker to send a “corruption code” for completely shutting your phone down and make it unusable.

“Bluebugging” which is a more scary attack, involves using special software to connect to a device and silently making it call another device (usually one the hacker is using) to act as a phone bug. Once your device is blue-bugged, the hacker can listen in on anything you and anyone around you are saying.

In addition, the hackers can use software to route long-distance calls all over the world to your phone by using Bluetooth, which in turn sticks you with the carrier phone charges.

Likewise, your hacked mobile phone can even remotely be used to make “micro-purchases,” or purchases that show up on your (the subscriber's) monthly bills.

Any type of mobile phone that has built-in Bluetooth can be hacked.

The only way to avoid Bluetooth attacks on your mobile phone is to disable Bluetooth when it is not in use. And when it is in use, make sure you do not leave in discoverable mode.

Immunity? From what? As the body count rises

Former Clinton staffer who built email server strikes immunity deal with FBI: report

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a State Department employee who helped build former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server, according to The Washington Post.

A law enforcement official told the Post that Bryan Pagliano has agreed to work with the FBI in exchange for not facing any possible criminal charges. 

The new development is not a good sign for the Democratic presidential front-runner, though there is still no indication that any criminal charges will be brought against Clinton. 

Sources also told the Post that Clinton will likely be interviewed by agents involved in the FBI’s investigation.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said that the former secretary of State has repeatedly offered to assist in the investigation.

“As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed,” Fallon said in a statement.

He added that the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano is assisting with the investigation.

...and...

Another Clinton Associate Found DEAD, Bill & Hillary’s Body Count Increases!

Fascinating information is going viral about Hillary and Bill Clinton, which exposes just how truly ruthless they are. In many ways they are worse than Obama. One major reason I say this is because the Clintons have a long history of people in their inner-circle dying under mysterious circumstances.

In fact, 46 people who were close to the Clintons have died during their 3 decades of political power. That number should give us all pause. If Hillary Clinton was a Republican, that number would be the question asked by reporters every day.

Now, the latest to be added to the list, maintained by WhatReallyHappened.com, is Walter Scheib. He was hired by the Clinton White House to work as a Chef, and continued to serve the Bush administration. Interestingly, he was reported missing during a hike, and his body was found almost 2 miles away at the bottom of a river. No cause of death has ever been made, but the death date is listed as June 13, 2015.

But the list is far more extensive! For example, Mary Mahoney was a Clinton White House Intern who was executed brutally at a Starbucks she was managing in 1997.  As a lesbian, she became close friends with all of the interns of the early Clinton administration, and they would seek her advice after Bill’s sexual advancements. She would have been a star witness during the Clinton impeachment trials.

And don’t forget Clinton White House Council Vince Foster, who was found dead in Ft. Marcy Park in Washington, D.C. He supposedly killed himself with a shotgun, and was found a few days later with a suitcase that contained a shredded suicide note.

Foster knew the Clintons from his time at Rose Law Firm in Arkansas, and had intimate details of the Clinton’s financial situation. Apparently, he made a phone call to Hillary Clinton just hours before his death. The person who found him never saw a gun.

Also, you may not have heard of the Clinton’s former lawyer Charles Ruff who died in 2000:

Charles Ruff was one of Clinton’s attorneys during the impeachment trial and was known to have inside information on the White House email scandal as well. Original reports were that he died in an accident in his home although no details were given. Then the report changed to claim that he was found in his bedroom unconscious, then declared dead on arrival at the hospital. The authorities will provide no details other than the usual (and quite premature) assurances that there was no foul play involved.

And don’t forget James McDougal!

Jim McDougal was serving his 3-year sentence for bank fraud at the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center in Texas, a facility operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for inmates who need medical attention.

Just prior to another round of testimony before Kenneth Starr’s grand jury, and while the reporters who were covering that story were two hours away covering a standoff situation in Waco that just “went away,” Jim McDougal suffered a heart attack while in solitary confinement. Left alone for too long, when Jim McDougal was taken out of solitary, instead of attempting to defibrillate his heart with equipment on hand at the facility, he was driven to John Peter Smith Hospital. Not the closest hospital to the Fort Worth Federal Medical Center, John Peter Smith Hospital is a welfare hospital, where (in the words of one local) ,”They let interns practice on deadbeats.”

NEW! The Fort Worth Star-Telegram acquired the official report of the McDougal death via a Freedom Of Information Act request, and reported that doctors ignored McDougal’s signs of imminent death.

The Clinton body count is massive and growing. Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing to become President, and death seems to follow her everywhere she goes. It is time to learn the truth about these murders and expose the Clintons. Instead of the White House, it appears they both belong in prison.

What do you think about the Clinton body count? Please leave us a comment (below) and tell us what you think!

*I'm not for either candidate! They're both worthless.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/another-clinton-associate-found-dead-bill-hillarys-body-count-increases/

She rang the doorbell

*I forgot to disconnect "Lil Joe" from the wireless doorbell and since he's up...

 This is 1 of the 2 quads that will be programed to fly designated flight paths with a little fuzzy logic thrown in to keep unwanted visitors guessing.

A website or blog with no SEO is similar to a car with no wheels

http://www.systemsnicaragua.com/#!web-design/cpfbj

The US is an oligarchy, study concludes

Report by researchers from Princeton and Northwestern universities suggests that US political system serves special interest organisations, instead of voters.

*All politicians are liars, that's their job! I'm seeking a liar that lies on behalf of the common man yet... There's no money in that now is there?

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded.

The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system.

After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

Researchers concluded that US government policies rarely align with the the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organisations: "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it."

Related Articles

• Will conservative donors ever open their wallets again? 
  10 Nov 2012
• Why America's poisonous politics makes 'Market Leninism' an attractive alternative 
  29 Mar 2014
• Obama: US 'fed up' with politics 
  17 Oct 2013

The positions of powerful interest groups are "not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens", but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10 per cent.

The theory of "biased pluralism" that the Princeton and Northwestern researchers believe the US system fits holds that policy outcomes "tend to tilt towards the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations."

The study comes in the wake of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial Supreme Court decision which allows wealthy donors to contribute to an unlimited number of political campaigns.

Benghazi, how in the fuck?

*Hillary knew nothing about this?

She couldn't see Bill's infidelity either so...

U.S. Efforts to Arm Jihadis in Syria: The Scandal Behind the Benghazi Undercover CIA Facility

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up.

That’s the part you’ve heard about: failure to protect the personnel at the embassy.

But then Hersh breaks the deeper story wide open:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s. The involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison operation. The former intelligence official explained that for years there has been a recognised exception in the law that permits the CIA not to report liaison activity to Congress, which would otherwise be owed a finding. (All proposed CIA covert operations must be described in a written document, known as a ‘finding’, submitted to the senior leadership of Congress for approval.) Distribution of the annex was limited to the staff aides who wrote the report and to the eight ranking members of Congress – the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the Democratic and Republicans leaders on the House and Senate intelligence committees. This hardly constituted a genuine attempt at oversight: the eight leaders are not known to gather together to raise questions or discuss the secret information they receive.

The annex didn’t tell the whole story of what happened in Benghazi before the attack, nor did it explain why the American consulate was attacked. ‘The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’

Hersh isn’t the first to report on this major scandal.

We’ve extensively documented that the bigger story behind the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens at the Benghazi embassy in Libya is that the embassy was the center of U.S. efforts to arm jihadis in Syria who are trying to topple the Syrian government.

We’ve also noted that this is not a partisan issue … both parties greenlighted regime change in Syria years ago, and both parties have tried to cover up what was really going on in Benghazi.

Last August, CNN touched on the weapons smuggling aspect of Benghazi.

The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate in Benghazi wasmainly being used for a secret CIA operation.

They say that the State Department presence in Benghazi “provided diplomatic cover” for the previously hidden CIA mission. WND alleges that it was not a real consulate.  And former CIA officer Philip Giraldiconfirms:

Benghazi has been described as a U.S. consulate, but it was not. It was an information office that had no diplomatic status. There was a small staff of actual State Department information officers plus local translators. The much larger CIA base was located in a separate building a mile away. It was protected by a not completely reliable local militia. Base management would have no say in the movement of the ambassador and would not be party to his plans, nor would it clear its own operations with the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. In Benghazi, the CIA’s operating directive would have been focused on two objectives: monitoring the local al-Qaeda affiliate group, Ansar al-Sharia, and tracking down weapons liberated from Colonel Gaddafi’s arsenal. Staff consisted of CIA paramilitaries who were working in cooperation with the local militia. The ambassador would not be privy to operational details and would only know in general what the agency was up to. When the ambassador’s party was attacked, the paramilitaries at the CIA base came to the rescue before being driven back into their own compound, where two officers were subsequently killed in a mortar attack.

Reuters notes that the CIA mission involved finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals.

Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition:

More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

Business Insider reports that Stevens may have been linked with Syrian terrorists:

There’s growing evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to jihadist Syrian rebels.

In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens’ life.

In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

***

Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot downSyrian helicopters and fighter jets.

The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as “a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles” … and that its security features “were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died.”

And we know that the CIA has been funneling weapons to the rebels in southern Turkey. The question is whether the CIA has been involved in handing out the heavy weapons from Libya.

In other words, ambassador Stevens may have been a key player in deploying Libyan terrorists and arms to fight the Syrian government.

Other sources also discuss that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi as mainly being used as a CIA operation to ship fighters and arms to Syria.

Many have speculated that – if normal security measures weren’t taken to protect the Benghazi consulate or to rescue ambassador Stevens – it was because the CIA was trying to keep an extremely low profile to protect its cover of being a normal State Department operation.

That is what I think really happened at Benghazi.

Was CIA Chief David Petraeus’ Firing Due to Benghazi?

CIA boss David Petraeus suddenly resigned, admitting to an affair. But Petraeus was scheduled to testify under oath the next week before power House and Senate committees regarding the Benghazi consulate. Many speculate that it wasn’t an affair – but the desire to avoid testifying on Benghazi – which was the real reason for Petraeus’ sudden resignation.  And see this.

The original source of this article is Washington's Blog

Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog, 2014