Why isn't it applied to the 1% ?

And... Why is that NEVER pointed out ???

go niners

Governments warned: Robots may take half our jobs in 20 years, so prepare for revolution
By Travis Gettys - RawStory
Friday, January 17, 2014 10:44 EST

<snip>

Nearly half of today’s jobs could be automated within the next two decades, according to one recent study, and no one seems to be prepared for what that will mean for society.

Study (.pdf file): http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

The digital revolution, just as the industrial revolution before it, is increasing productivity but also transforming the workforce – putting workers out of some jobs and into others. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as many of the newly created jobs are higher-paying or less physically demanding, but rapidly changing economies dislocates many workers and transforms societies in unpredictable ways.

The technological “tornado” will hit the rich world first, reported The Economist, but will eventually sweep through poorer countries, reshaping politics and social organizations.

The Economist Article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21594298-effect-todays-technology-tomorrows-jobs-will-be-immenseand-no-country-ready

Oxford University researchers predicted that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are “at risk” for being automated in the next 20 years – especially in transportation, logistics, office and administrative support work.

The researchers also expressed surprise that service occupations, where most recent U.S. job growth has occurred, are “highly susceptible” to computerization.

For example...

<snip>

More: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/17/governments-warned-robots-may-take-half-our-jobs-in-20-years-so-prepare-for-revolution/

A MAJOR VICTORY FOR SNOWDEN AND N.S.A. REFORMERS
POSTED BY RYAN LIZZA - TheNewYorker
JANUARY 17, 2014

<snip>

...
...
...

Before today, when skeptics made this same argument about needing a new law to constrain the government, they were met with puzzled expressions and condescending explanations of the ways in which law already constrained the government. Look no further than the Obama Administration’s official white paper, released last August, which defended the phone-metadata program as a model of democratic governance, saying that the program had been endorsed by Congress, which repeatedly reauthorized the Patriot Act, and reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which routinely extends the program’s judicial mandate. In recent months, numerous government officials have told the public that the program meets, in the word of the former N.S.A. director Michael Hayden, the “Madisonian” test of being created and reviewed by all three branches of government.

Today, Obama reversed course, acknowledging that all of that wasn’t enough. He has now adopted the language of the reformers: “I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future,” he said. “They’re also right to point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.”

So where did this newfound skepticism about government secrecy and the frightening implications of collecting an enormous amount of data abut private citizens lead the President? To the same conclusion as the civil libertarians—Rand Paul, Ron Wyden, James Sensenbrenner, Edward Snowden—who have been the most concerned about the Section 215 program: the N.S.A. should no longer collect our phone records. That is a major policy change for this President and his Administration, and it’s an incredible victory for the often maligned community of whistle-blowers, journalists, news organizations, and members of Congress who have called on Obama to end this policy.

What about the fine print? Obama’s speech was filled with caveats, calls for further study, and pained sympathizing with each side of the debate. He was insistent that some entity should continue to collect this information, so that it is available it a search-ready format. There are enormous privacy implications to such a database existing anywhere—whether inside or outside the government—and the details of how such a system is set up will be crucial. Many critics of the metadata program insist that the government shouldn’t create the database at all, arguing that if it wants telephone records, it should go get a warrant and ask the telecom communities for the information. As with his intelligence-review panel, Obama has tried to find a middle ground: the data will still be consolidated in one place, but searches will require judicial approval or “a true emergency.”

But these caveats should not overshadow the fact that Obama has sided with his fiercest critics on two of the most important reforms that have been demanded since Snowden’s first revelations: the N.S.A. should no longer collect this data and the spy agency should generally be required to have court approval when it wants to search Americans’ phone records.

...
...

<snip>

The Whole Piece: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/01/a-major-victory-for-snowden-and-nsa-reformers.html

Obama's NSA speech: Five burning questions
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
1/17/14

<snip>

President Barack Obama’s speech Friday outlined new changes to national intelligence gathering practices, but it left out a lot of specifics.

While the proposals would reduce some of the latitude given to the National Security Agency in the name of homeland security, will they be enough to assuage a skeptical public? What’s Congress’ role in approving or implementing the president’s plan? And what does this mean for irked foreign allies?

Here are five big questions left in the wake of his proposal:

1. Who will store the metadata?

Perhaps the biggest news from Obama’s speech was his call for the U.S. government to no longer house the bulk data of phone records – or metadata – and give that to another entity. The rub, however, is that even the president doesn’t know what that other entity should be.

In his speech, Obama recognized that accessing the records through phone and internet companies could raise new privacy concerns, and he said forming an entirely new third-party organization could create legal ambiguities. So he has asked for time to come up with a solution.

"I have instructed the intelligence community and Attorney General to … develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that <the NSA program> was designed to address without the government holding this metadata,” he said. “They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28."

2. Will Congress act?...

More: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22340505-obamas-nsa-speech-five-burning-questions?lite

If Snowden Made Us Stronger How Is He a Traitor?
By: Jon Walker - FDL
Friday January 17, 2014 9:18 am

<snip>

During his speech about the NSA President Obama said this current debate on surveillance will make us stronger as a country. From Obama:



The only reason this debate is taking place now is because of the actions of Edward Snowden. Logically this must mean what Snowden did was make the country stronger. So I’m curious how Snowden can both be responsible for making the country stronger and also a traitor according to the administration.

It is also worth highlighting that Obama’s defense is to point out he is not as bad as a communist dictator. That is not exactly a high bar.

<snip>

Link: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2014/01/17/if-snowden-made-us-stronger-how-is-he-a-traitor/

Edward Snowden Vindicated: Obama Speech Acknowledges Changes Needed To Surveillance
The Huffington Post | By Matt Sledge
Posted: 01/17/2014 12:18 pm EST | Updated: 01/17/2014 12:48 pm EST

<snip>

In a major speech Friday on the future of the National Security Agency, President Barack Obama announced a series of modest reforms to the way the agency does business. While he was doing so, he also reluctantly acknowledged the secret surveillance programs that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed needed changing.

"The task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations; or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future," Obama said. "Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals -- and our Constitution -- require."

Obama's remarks were grudging toward Snowden, who fled to Russia after his leaks were made public and has been charged with violating the Espionage Act. The president said he was "not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or motivations," and that "our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets."

But Snowden's leaks didn't just inform the public debate: in a piece on Thursday, The New York Times reported that Obama himself was unaware until Snowden's disclosures that the NSA was tapping the phones of foreign leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/obama-edward-snowden_n_4617970.html

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring
Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
DECEMBER 22, 2012

<snip>

FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) pursuant to the PCJF’s Freedom of Information Act demands reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat even though the agency acknowledges in documents that organizers explicitly called for peaceful protest and did “not condone the use of violence” at occupy protests.

The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.

“This production, which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

“The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is withholding far more material. We are filing an appeal challenging this response and demanding full disclosure to the public of the records of this operation,” stated Heather Benno, staff attorney with the PCJF.



<snip>

More: http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html