Re-validate webmail ????
I received an email from: Provider IT Tech as follows:
Your Cox! Web mail version is outdated and has expired. Failure to Upgrade to the newest Cox! Web mail now will result in a permanent accou...
Forum Discussion
I guess you'd need to define "secret" because what are they referring to...Bigfoot, Jimmy Hoffa, why is Lindsey Graham not married?
If they're referring to the US Gov't, then, yes, I'd be surprised if America didn't safeguard many tomes of secrets. I've read newly-elected presidents succumb to Canities Subita after being briefed on said secrets. I was in the military, stationed overseas, worked on the flightline and clearly briefed on what'd happen to me if our base was overtaken. It's a farfetched scenario but a scenario nonetheless; however, I knew secrets and those secrets had to remain secrets.
The funny thing about secrets is only trusted people know secrets. If somebody reveals a secret, you can't trust them. If you can't trust them, it's probably not a secret.
The "Big Brother is Watching" episode isn't about Bigfoot, Jimmy Hoffa or any of those kinds of secrets. It's about technology tools used by our government to safeguard American citizens from terrorist attacks. For example, Osama Bin Laden was supposedly identified via facial recognition software from a satellite.
Overhead facial recognition from space? Yet we can't find a Malaysian aircraft or hordes of white supremacists terrorizing our streets? If this technology exists, I'd think you'd see more gov't employees wearing big, floppy hats...veils...or buckets.
Ripley's Believe It or Not! was popular in its day because it exploited our natural curiosity and resistance to reason. It's just entertainment.
Satellite facial recognition may or may not have been how the CIA identified Bin Laden, hence my use of “supposedly”. They could have leaked that story to protect their local, ground source. Had the story been an automated drone strike launched by an algorithm from facial recognition software, it would have been dismissed as pure nonsense. But, facial recognition software could have been used to trigger a possible hit that was subsequently verified by eyes on the satellite image by a lot of people who then made the determination that it was in fact Bin Laden.
Publicly available satellite cameras are limited to 25 cm resolution. Government spy satellites with 1 cm resolution can see clothing details, cracks in the sidewalk and small bits of trash on the ground. It’s entirely plausible that satellite face recognition could have been used to help identify Bin Laden at a specific, suspected location. However, locating a downed airliner at an unknown location somewhere on the ocean floor is a higher level of difficulty that’s not available… yet.
It's the art of persuasion and your explanation follows the same script as Ripley's!
First, you're open-minded when a show starts. Second the narrator says something outlandish (satellite facial recognition) and you can't help but roll your eyes. Third, the narrator then rebuffs the outlandish claim (leaked to protect) to reinforce your skepticism and then further repudiates the claim with, "How could an algorithmic facial-recognition program ever instantly launch an unmanned drone in time to make the kill? It's crazy to believe!"
Then your pessimism is disarmed and you become open-minded again. Then you think, "But wouldn't it be awesome if it were true! Bait, set, hooked.
Fourth, the narrator tosses some numbers for plausibility: 25 cm...1 cm...details on clothes (Osama's clothes?)...trash on the ground (Osama would be bigger than trash!). Besides, what would you really know about satellites? Satellite positioning? Orbits? I don't know but 1 cm sounds pretty technical!
I don't know if this is true. I do know satellites are tens of thousands of miles above with clouds, trees and shadows in between and would need to be at a low angle to see a face...so it'd be a one-in-a-gazillion chance anybody in a country of 37 million people would be OBL.
