The Facebook-You Don’t Own Your Face,We Do

Facebook is working on advanced facial recognition technology
to identify users by creating digital faceprints.
The company has begun lobbying state legislatures feverishly
to protect its investments in the technology.
In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation

Facebook’s massive facial recognition database grows each time you tag a face to a person’s name.

Does that give FB the permanent right to catalog your face? What about your clothing and posture?

All these can be used to identify you on the street, without your knowledge or consent.

Technocrats are data addicts who can never get enough data.


When Chicago resident Carlo Licata joined Facebook in 2009, he did what the 390 million other users of the world’s largest social network had already done:
He posted photos of himself and friends, tagging the images with names.
But what Licata, now 34, didn’t know was that every time he was tagged, Facebook stored his digitized face in its growing database.

Angered this was done without his knowledge, Licata sued Facebook in 2015 as part of a class action lawsuit filed in Illinois state court accusing the company of violating a one-of-a-kind Illinois law that prohibits collection of biometric data without permission.

The suit is ongoing…

Facebook denied the charges, arguing the law doesn’t apply to them. But behind the scenes, the social network giant is working feverishly to prevent other states from enacting a law like the one in Illinois.

Since the suit was filed, Facebook has stepped up its state lobbying, according to records and interviews with lawmakers.

But rather than wading into policy fights itself, Facebook has turned to lower-profile trade groups such as,
the Internet Association, based in Washington, D.C.
the Illinois-based trade association CompTIA,
…to head off bills that would give users more control over how their likenesses are used or whom they can be sold to.

That effort is part of a wider agenda.

Tech companies, whose business model is based on collecting data about its users and using it to sell ads, frequently oppose consumer privacy legislation. But privacy advocates say Facebook is uniquely aggressive in opposing all forms of regulation on its technology.

And the strategy has been working. Bills that would have created new consumer data protections for facial recognition were proposed in at least five states this year,
New Hampshire
… but all failed, except the Washington bill, which passed only after its scope was limited.

No federal law regulates how companies use biometric privacy or facial recognition, and no lawmaker has ever introduced a bill to do so.

That prompted the Government Accountability Office to conclude in 2015 that the,
“privacy issues that have been raised by facial recognition technology serve as yet another example of the need to adapt federal privacy law to reflect new technologies.”
Congress did, however, roll back privacy protections in March by allowing Internet providers to sell browser data without the consumer’s permission.

Facebook says on its website it won’t ever sell users’ data, but the company is poised to cash in on facial recognition in other ways.

The market for facial recognition is forecast to grow to $9.6 billion by 2022, according to analysts at Allied Market Research, as companies look for ways to authenticate and recognize repeat customers in stores, or offer specific ads based on a customer’s gender or age.

Facebook is working on advanced recognition technology that would put names to faces even if they are obscured and identify people by their clothing and posture.

Facebook has filed patents for technology allowing Facebook to tailor ads based on users’ facial expressions.

But despite the relative lack of regulation, the technology appears to be worrying politicians on both sides of the aisle, and privacy advocates too.

During a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee in March, Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who left Congress in June, warned facial recognition,
“can be used in a way that chills free speech and free association by targeting people attending certain political meetings, protests, churches or other types of places in public.”
Even one of the inventors of facial recognition is worried.
“It pains me to see a technology that I helped invent being used in a way that is not what I had in mind in respect to privacy,” said Joseph Atick, who helped develop facial recognition in the 1990s at Rockefeller University in New York City.
Joseph Atick, now an industry consultant, is concerned that companies such as Facebook will use the technology to identify individuals in public spaces without their knowledge or permission.
“I can no longer count on being an anonymous person,” he said, “when I’m walking down the street.”
Atick calls for federal regulations to protect people’s privacy, because without it Americans are left with,
“a myriad of state laws,” he said. “And state laws can be more easily manipulated by commercial interests.”

Facial recognition is here

Facial recognition’s use is increasing. Retailers employ it to identify shoplifters, and bankers want to use it to secure bank accounts at ATMs.

The Internet of things – connecting thousands of everyday personal objects from light bulbs to cars – may use an individual’s face to allow access to household devices. Churches already use facial recognition to track attendance at services.

Government is relying on it as well. President Donald Trump staffed the U.S. Homeland Security Department transition team with at least four executives tied to facial recognition firms.

Law enforcement agencies run facial recognition programs using mug shots and driver’s license photos to identify suspects. About half of adult Americans are included in a facial recognition database maintained by law enforcement, estimates the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law School.

To tap into this booming business, companies need something only Facebook has – a massive database of faces.

Facebook now has 2 billion monthly users who upload about 350 million photos every day – a “practically infinite” amount of data that Facebook can use to train its facial recognition software, according to a 2014 presentation by an engineer working on DeepFace, Facebook’s in-house facial-recognition project.

“When we invented face recognition, there was no database,” Atick said.
Facebook has,
“a system that could recognize the entire population of the Earth.”
Facebook says it doesn’t have any plans to directly sell its database.
“We do not sell people’s facial recognition template or make them available for use by developers or advertisers, and we have no plans to do so,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in an email.
But Facebook currently uses facial recognition to organize photos and to support its research into artificial intelligence, which Facebook hopes will lead to new platforms to place more focused targeted ads, according to public announcements made by the company.

The more Facebook can recognize what is in users’ photographs using artificial intelligence, the more they can learn about users’ hobbies, preferences and interests – valuable information for companies looking to pinpoint sales efforts.

For example, if Facebook identifies a user’s face and her friends hiking in a photo, it can use that information to place ads for hiking equipment on her Facebook page, said Larry Ponemon, founder of the Ponemon Institute, a privacy and security research and consulting group.
“The whole Facebook model is a commercial model,” Ponemon said, “gathering information about people and then basically selling them products” based on that information.
Facebook hasn’t been consistent about what it plans to do with its facial data.

In 2012, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law, then-Chairman Al Franken, D-Minn., asked Facebook’s then-manager of privacy and public policy, Rob Sherman, to assure users the company wouldn’t share its faceprint database with third parties.

Sherman declined.
“It’s difficult to know in the future what Facebook will look like five or 10 years down the road, and so it’s hard to respond to that hypothetical,” Sherman said.
And in 2013, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan told Reuters,
“Can I say that we will never use facial recognition technology for any other purposes [other than suggesting who to tag in photos]? Absolutely not.”
Egan added, though, that if Facebook did use the technology for other purposes the firm would give users control over it.


Nearly a decade ago, when facial recognition was still in its infancy, Illinois passed the Biometric Information and Privacy Act (BIPA) of 2008 after a fingerprint-scanning company went bankrupt, putting the security of the biometric data the company collected in doubt.

The law requires companies to obtain permission from an individual before collecting biometric data, including,
“a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.”
It also requires companies to list the purpose and length of time the data will be stored and include those details in a written biometric privacy policy.

If a business violates the law, individuals can sue the company, a provision that no other state privacy law permits.
“The Illinois law is a very stringent law,” said Chad Marlow, policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“But it’s not inherently an unreasonable law. Illinois wanted to protect its citizens from facial recognition technologies online.”
That may include, possibly, Facebook’s Tag Suggestions application.

First introduced in 2010, Tag Suggestions allows Facebook users to label friends and family members in photos with their name using facial recognition. When a user tags a friend in a photo or selects a profile picture, Tag Suggestions creates a personal data profile that it uses to identify that person in other photos on Facebook or in newly uploaded images.

Facebook started quietly enrolling users in Tag Suggestions in 2010 without informing them or obtaining their permission.

By June 2011, Facebook announced it had enrolled all users, except for a few countries.

That’s what upset Licata, who works in finance in Chicago.

In the lawsuit against Facebook, which names two other plaintiffs, Licata alleges that every time he was tagged in an image or selected a new profile picture, Facebook,
“extracted from those photographs a unique faceprint or ‘template’ for him containing his biometric identifiers, including his facial geometry, and identified who he was,” according to the lawsuit.

“Facebook subsequently stored Licata’s biometric identifiers in its databases.”
The other plaintiffs also claim that by using their data to build DeepFace, Facebook deprived them of the monetary value of their biometric data.

The statute carries penalties up to $5,000 per violation, which potentially could include thousands of Illinois residents.

Licata declined an interview request through the law firm representing him, Chicago-based Edelson PC, which specializes in suing technology companies over privacy violations.

The firm’s founder, Jay Edelson, is a controversial figure. Some technologists and colleagues view him as an opportunist – a “leech tarted up as a freedom fighter” – according to a New York Times profile.

Facebook declined the Center for Public Integrity’s requests to comment on the lawsuit specifically, but said in an email that,
“our work demonstrates our commitment to protecting the over 210 million Americans who use our service.”
Facebook told The New York Times in 2015 that the BIPA lawsuit,
“is without merit, and we will defend ourselves vigorously.”
Facebook says users can turn off Tag Suggestions, but critics say the process is complex, making it likely the feature will remain active.

And many Facebook users don’t even know data about their likenesses are being stored.
“As a person who has been tagged, there should be some agreement at least that this is acceptable” before Facebook enrolls users in Tag Suggestions, said privacy researcher Ponemon.

“But the train has left the station.”
In 2016, just 21 days after the judge in the Licata case ruled against a Facebook motion that the Illinois law only applies to in-person scans, not images or video, an amendment to BIPA that would have defined facial scans just that way was offered in the state Senate.

After consumer groups such as the World Privacy Forum and the Illinois Public Interest Research Group wrote letters of opposition, the measure was withdrawn by its sponsor, state Sen. and Assistant Majority Leader Terry Link, D-Vernon Hills. Link did not respond to requests for comment.

Facebook has expressed support for the amendment, but won’t confirm or deny their involvement in the attempt.

The effort fits a pattern, said Alvaro Bedoya, executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University.
“Their approach has been, ‘If you sue us, it doesn’t apply to us; if you say it does apply to us, we’ll try to change the law’,” Bedoya said.

“It is only laws like Illinois’ that could put some kind of check on this authority, so it is no coincidence that [Facebook] would like to see this law undone.

This is the strongest privacy law in the nation. If it goes away, that’s a big deal.”

Facebook’s state lobbying spending grows
Source: National Institute on Money in State Politics

Facebook’s hidden lobbying

Facebook started lobbying the federal government in earnest around 2011, when it reported spending nearly $1.4 million.

By 2016, the amount grew more than five times, to almost $8.7 million, when Facebook lobbied on issues such as data security, consumer privacy and tax reform, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Facebook spends much less to influence state lawmakers.

According to reports compiled by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, it spent $670,895 on lobbying in states in 2016, a 64 percent jump from $373,388 in 2014. Facebook has an active presence in a handful of states – primarily California and New York – but it only hired its first lobbyist in Illinois for this year’s session.

Facebook prefers to work through trade associations to influence policy.

Sources in the Illinois Legislature told the Center for Public Integrity that the BIPA amendment attempt, which would have redefined facial recognition, was led by CompTIA, a trade group that bills itself as,
“the world’s leading tech association.”
CompTIA declined to comment in detail, but confirmed that Facebook is among its members.

Facebook declined to comment about whether it was behind the amendment. When Edelson lawyers asked for information about Facebook’s lobbying related to BIPA, Facebook’s lawyers successfully requested the court to seal those records, keeping the information private.

On its website, Facebook says it is a member of 56 groups and 108 third-party organizations that it works with,
“on issues relating to technology and Internet policy.”
CompTIA, despite acknowledging Facebook is a member, isn’t on the list.

At the Facebook annual shareholders meeting in Redwood City, California, last month, more than 90 percent of the shares voted were opposed to a proposal that would have required the company to provide more information about its political associations, including grass-roots lobbying.

CompTIA, which absorbed the Washington, D.C.-based tech advocacy group TechAmerica in 2015, employs one permanent lobbyist in Illinois and contracts with the Roosevelt Group, one of Illinois’ “super lobbyists,” which last year represented lobbying powerhouses AT&T Illinois, payday lender PLS Financial Services and the influential Illinois Retail Gaming & Operators Association.

In August 2016 CompTIA published a blog post about the practical applications of biometrics, and labeled BIPA “problematic” because terms such as “consent” and “facial recognitions” are vaguely defined and it,
“invites an avalanche of litigation.”
CompTIA made political contributions to just two non-candidate groups in 2016 – in the two states with the strictest privacy laws, Illinois and Texas, according to the National Institute of Money in State Politics.

CompTIA gave $21,225 last year to the Illinois Democratic Party.

CompTIA also gave $5,000 to the Republican Party in Texas, where Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton is charged with enforcing the state’s biometric privacy regulations, according to the institute.

Texas enacted one of the stricter biometric privacy laws in the nation. Signed in 2009, the law requires companies to obtain an individual’s permission to capture a biometric identifier such as a facial image.

But unlike Illinois’ law, it doesn’t allow state residents to sue and leaves the enforcement authority solely with the attorney general. The Texas attorney general’s office declined to comment on whether it has pursued lawsuits on biometric privacy violations.

There’s no indication that Paxton’s office has ever completed an investigation, according to a review of records.

‘They will descend on you’
New Hampshire
…proposed biometric privacy laws this past legislative session, but all failed except for a weakened version that survived in Washington.

Two other states – Arizona and Missouri – proposed narrower bills that provide privacy protections just for students, but both fizzled out in committee.

Illinois tabled a proposed amendment to BIPA that would have strengthened the law by barring companies from making submission of biometric data a requirement of doing business.
Google Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
trade groups like CompTIA,
…had a hand in blocking or weakening the biometric privacy bills in Montana, Washington and Illinois, according to a Center for Public Integrity review.

What happened in Montana is typical. Katherine Sullivan, a small business owner and intellectual privacy lawyer turned privacy advocate, helped write a biometric privacy bill that Democrat Rep. Nate McConnell introduced this year in the Montana Legislature.
“Everyone I talked to as a citizen thought it was a good idea,” Sullivan said.
Still, Sullivan said she was warned that lobbyists representing powerful companies would come out against the law.
“‘They will descend on you’,” Sullivan said she was told.
The Montana bill was introduced Feb. 17 and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

Only one hearing on the bill was held, on Feb. 23. Lobbyists from Verizon, the Internet Coalition, which represents Internet and ecommerce companies including Facebook, and the Montana Retail Association showed up in opposition to the bill.

At the hearing, Jessie Luther, a lobbyist from Verizon, read a letter signed by,
the Internet Coalition
TechNet, a network of chief executives from technology companies
the State Privacy and Security Coalition, a group of major internet communications, retail and media companies
All three count Facebook as a member.

The letter, addressed to state Rep. Alan Doane, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned that the proposed ,
“would put Montana residents and businesses at much greater risk of fraud, as well as open the door to wasteful class action lawsuits against Montana businesses that receive biometric data.”
It also warned that the bill would prevent using biometrics for “beneficial purposes” such as accessing and securing personal accounts.

Doane said in an interview he doesn’t remember the letter, but agreed with many of its points.

On Feb. 27, the bill was tabled in committee.

Facial recognition, WhatsApp and Facebook’s
privacy record

The ‘NRA approach’

Tough privacy legislation that would have prohibited the collection of biometric information without prior consent and allow individuals to sue companies that violate the law also fizzled out in New Hampshire and Alaska.

A weaker bill in Connecticut would have prohibited brick-and-mortar stores from using facial recognition for marketing purposes died in committee.

Washington’s law requires companies to obtain permission from customers before enrolling their biometric data into a database for commercial use and prohibits companies from selling, leasing or otherwise handing the data over to a third party without consent.

But it does not allow individuals to sue companies directly.

More important, some privacy advocates say, the law exempts biometric data pulled from photographs, video or audio recordings, similar to the amendment CompTIA had lobbied for in Illinois as a way to weaken BIPA, which would exempt Facebook’s Tag Suggestions.

Earlier versions of the law won the approval of big tech companies such as Google and Microsoft Corp., and the privacy advocacy group the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

But in 2016, EFF pulled its support when the bill was amended to omit “facial geometry,” which Adam Schwartz, a senior staff attorney at EFF, said would cover facial recognition.

Schwartz said the final statute is weaker than BIPA because the law’s language is written in such a way that it may allow companies to capture facial recognition data without informed notice or consent.

The statute,
“appears to have been tailored to protect companies that are using facial recognition,” Shwartz said.
Democratic state Rep. Jeff Morris, one of the bill’s sponsors, disagrees.

Morris said the law covers any data that can be used to identify a person by unique physical characteristics, including applications that use,
“precise measurements between the bridge of your nose and your eyes.”
But Morris said while most of the big tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon and Google supported the bill in its final form, Facebook remained opposed.

Facebook’s hired lobbyist in Washington – Alex Hur, a former aide to state Speaker of the House Frank Chopp – was,
“lobbying quite ferociously on the bill,” Morris said.
Facebook objected to the bill, he said, because it included as protected data “behavioral biometrics,” which refers to data on how a person moves, including an individual’s gait as recorded in videos.

Hur did not respond to requests for comment.

One of the trade groups working on Facebook’s behalf in Washington was the Washington Technology Industry Association.

At a hearing on the legislation in February, Jim Justin, a WTIA representative, argued tagging services like Facebook’s should be exempt from the law.
“Given facial recognition, that data should be protected,” Justin said, “but if you are tagging someone on Facebook and simply using their name, we don’t think that falls under what should be protected, given that that person provided consent.”
A CompTIA lobbyist also spoke at the February hearing, asking lawmakers to take a “limited approach” to biometric privacy.
Morris said CompTIA adopts what he calls the “NRA approach” to lobbying.
“They basically say, ‘You’ll take our innovation out of our cold, dead hands’,” he said.

“This is a pretty common public-affairs tactic,” Morris added, “an association that does the dirty work so your company isn’t tarnished.”

‘Didn’t know they existed until…’

State legislatures are beginning to recognize that many personally identifying technologies may require additional regulatory attention – and technology companies such as Facebook and their trade groups are gearing up to fight them.

Lawmakers in Illinois formed a committee this year to discuss technology issues such as data privacy. The CyberSecurity, Data Analytics and IT committee in the Illinois House of Representatives held its first hearing in March.

The formation of the committee brought national attention to Springfield.
“It has brought in groups from D.C.,” like the Internet Association, said Rep. Jaime Andrade Jr., D-Chicago, the committee’s chairman.
CompTIA also has been “very active,” he said.
“I didn’t know they existed until the committee” formed, Andrade added. “As soon as the committee was created they came in and introduced themselves.”

The European Union Plans To Disable Use Of Cash Transactions

Run to the bank, dear EU citizen. Everything is surrendered, the EU is planning. Everything will be taken from you, you will be a hostage to the state, warns Pavel Kohout and suggests a bad thing!

Next year, the European Commission will publish an impact assessment of the EU-wide cash limitation, which suggests that this will happen if the cash payments are not even completely disallowed. Economist Pavel Kohout rejects the rationale for this intention because the financing of terrorism is practiced by the European Union itself, and money laundering is seen as a minor problem compared to the misuse of European subsidies. Analyst Patrik Nacher finds it ridiculous for the state that issued money to forbid them to use, as well as forcing someone to save money and set up an account.

The European Commission has published the results of the consultation on the limitation of cash payments aimed at getting public opinion on possible measures by the European Union in the field of restrictions on cash payments of larger volumes. It therefore took note of its communication to the Council and the Parliament of 2 February 2016 on an Action Plan to further intensify the fight against terrorist financing, which is largely used for cash payments. Limited cash payments, together with the reporting of cash and other anti-money laundering measures, should make it more difficult for terrorist networks to operate and limit further crime. At the same time, it would simplify the course of further investigations to trace the financial operations that occurred in the terrorist activity. In 2018, the European Commission will publish an Impact Assessment stating the follow-up steps.
This may not be a long way from limiting or completely canceling non-cash payments. However, it must be remembered that by transferring all of his financial life to a bank above him a person loses full control. It is a mistake to execute or suspect of crime and immediately falls into existence problems, regardless of your income and financial reserves, because the bank account is a matter of a matter of seconds. While cash represents an immediate and final transfer of value between two parties, electronic payments are, on the contrary, performed by a third party – an intermediary whose credit risk must be accepted by the client and paid to him. If people could not use cash, central banks would have absolute control over money, and people would become the subjects of their experiments. Negative interest, when a person has to pay the bank for having the money deposited with her, becomes a viable decision.

The European Union itself is the most concerned about the financing of terrorism
Economist Pavel Kohout considers payment of cash payments a bad measure against ordinary consumers and completely rejects the rationale of combating terrorist financing and money laundering. "But for God's sake, the financing of terrorism is the very thing that the states themselves are doing, or the European Union itself. European Union Member States pay social benefits to potential suspects, or even returning terrorists from the Islamic State, as is the case with Sweden. If there was no support from the states or the European Union, terrorism would not be so much a problem. The limitation of cash payments has nothing to do with it. And as far as money laundering is concerned, it is such a minor problem compared to how European subsidies are abused, that it does not make sense to talk about it, "Pavel Kohout told
The bank's analyst and banking expert, Patrik Nacher, is also behind the planned cash cuts. "I am a long-standing critic of artificial, unnatural restrictions on cash payments because I think that in this case, development is authentic. Individual businesses, be they consumers, individuals or companies, companies, naturally aim at the cheapest and safest way of financial transactions. This means that it does – but naturally – increase cashless operations, make more use of payment cards, or make more transfers from account to account. Coming with some artificial regulation when cash is or not to be used, that's something I disagree with, "Patrick Nacher says for
By the system, we are forced to request a service with a commercial subject
He points out that there are situations when one wants to use cash. "Or are people who have no confidence in cashless payments. It is beyond any understanding that the state as a money-issuing institute is also forbidden to use it. That seems totally absurd to me. Just man has some means and it is on him the form of their distribution chooses. Forcing someone to save money and set up an account, I find it terrible. That's every thing he wants to take precedence. When you have cash, you answer for yourself. At the moment you operate non-cash, you are forced to open an account somewhere, having a credit card somewhere. In essence, that law tells us that we need to seek service with a commercial subject. And I do not like it either, "admits Patrick Nacher.

"Many people, for various reasons – and they can be absolutely legitimate reasons – prefer cash. Cash constraints or, ultimately, a total ban on money that is often spoken of could lead to a person becoming a hostage of the state, and if we had any savings, the state would be able to deprive those savings of all their impunity. It could introduce a tax on savings. After all, we have already seen something similar in the case of Cyprus. It could introduce a negative interest rate, which is also a thing that has already occurred, and could continue to do so. So I'm definitely keeping the cash and I do not agree with her limitation. If someone suits cashless payments, why not, I do not mind, I myself often pay cashlessly, but I certainly would not be for any violent restriction of the money, "insists Pavel Kohout, his economist.
Big brother, but masked in the fight against terrorist financing
According to Patrick Nacher, the cash payment for a regular user has one advantage. "It is clearly proven that when paying in cash and not by credit card, a person – consumer – is much more economical, modest. In other words, cash payment means that a person suddenly becomes more aware of the value of money and of having to earn them, so he has a much less appetite for nonsensical spending. It is a natural feature that one does not like to give up, he gives money, he slips, he can reach them, they create a relationship, so I do not want to adore it. I'm just describing that when a person issues money, he wraps his wallet visually. And so much more thinks what they spend. While working with virtual money, such as a credit card, it puts something on it, even money does not see, there is no bond. Non-cash payments lead to much more spending. It has this moment too, "notes the bank analyst.

The cash payment limitation compares with the limitation of arms possession. "If the black money is a problem, let it happen very vigorously. But because people promise people to make dirty money, or promile people distributes money for terrorism, buzzing all of them comes unfair. Because of the negligible number of entities that break something, rules are created that apply to everyone. Only those who have done in this area will simplify the job by ordering something for everyone. We do not have the natural course of choice for people to choose what is better, more effective, safer than they are to be ordered under such an embarrassing fight against the financing of terrorism. That makes me really smile. Let them say straight away: we want to have more control over what people spend on how they behave, that is, the Big Brother 'on the move, than to play that we want to control the financing of terrorism or tax evasion. It's really funny, because it's about the promile of people, "notes Patrick Nacher.

Cash deserves protection, threatening destructive impacts on the economy
They do not even talk about restricting cash payments, but also banning them, or reporting money. "At present there are anti-money laundering regulations that apply to banks, investment companies, insurance companies and similar financial institutions, which also to a certain extent limit cash receipts. But I do not know if there is any other suggestion in this direction that would tighten up the existing measures even more, but I think that what is already today is sufficient or even exaggerated. And I'm not in favor of it continuing, "Pavel Kohout, economist at Economist, told.
It is good to keep in mind the risks pointed out by Slovak economist Juraj Karpiš, a loud supporter of cash payments. "If all of your payments are electronic, then there is data about your financial life that can exploit criminals, the state, or a combination of them. From your bank account, you will also be able to see where you are moving, when you go on holiday and what cosmetics you buy. When there is no cash, it is also significantly easier to tax everything in the economy. An exotic proposal also emerges in Slovakia: to tax every electronic financial operation, ie the withdrawal from an ATM, as well as payment of the payment or payment of yogurt. Such a tax is masked at a low rate, but it has a more destructive impact on the economy than direct or indirect taxes. For all this, cash deserves protection, "explains Juraj Karpiš, who could also expect us to be in a purely non-cash payment world.


The United Nations Document From 2000 Exposes Global “Migration Replacement” Solution

UN Document From 2000 Exposes Global “Migration Replacement” Solution To Developed World Demographics

Ever wondered why so many western elites are so vehemently supportive of mass immigration? Ever question how willfully blind the establishment is to the costs (human and capital) of allowing any- and everyone into the heart of European nations? Well wonder no more…

As a reminder, the world faces decades of depopulation. Our present economic issues began decades ago. To understand what is happening economically, simply check the headwaters of (de)population (excluding Africa) under way since 1990…the chart below shows the 0-5yr/old population (excluding Africa) vs. the 0-5yr/old population of Africa.

World 0-5yr/old population change (excluding Africa):

1950–>1990 + 234m
1990–>2015 <-47m>
2015–>2050 <-67m> (UN med. est.)
Africa 0-5yr/old population change:

1950–>1990 + 71m
1990–>2015 +75m
2015–>2050 +95m (UN med. est.)

Population growth is responsible for the majority of GDP growth…so a downturn in population growth matters…particularly when population growth shifts from wealthy or developing nations to the poorest. I’m not describing something that may happen in the future…I’m describing what has already happened that is continuing to send progressively larger tsunamis swamping the world economy and has the central bankers doing everything and anything to try to sustain the unsustainable.

Which means, as Econimica’s Chris Hamilton recently noted, the next business cycle recession will be unending and is very likely to run years into decades and perhaps a century or more. A declining population already indebted with record debt and zero interest rates will consume less…meaning overcapacity and excess inventories will never be fully cleared before the next downturn…and on and on and on.

But the absence of a growing consumer base isn’t just a US issue…this is a global problem. The annual growth of the 0-64yr/old population of the combined OECD nations (most the EU, US, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, S. Korea, Australia / New Zealand) plus China, Brazil, and Russia show the growth that has driven nearly all economic growth has come to an end…and begins declining from here on.

And when importers are shrinking, exporters have no one to export to…and on and on and on. The depopulation we are now facing is not simply a demographic issue that so many believe; the end of growth is the start of the SHTF scenario in which we now find ourselves. While this situation offers short term nirvana to investors, the economic repercussions are ultimately disastrous.

And so with that as background – and as noted above, a crisis that has been foreseeable on the horizon for years – it appears, based on a recently exposed United Nations report from the year 2000, that the ‘new world order’ envisioned a ‘final solution’ to this demographic dilemma of a collapsing consumer base for the west’s credit-based economies…

The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled ?Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations??. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:
In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.
Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.
Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.
The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.
The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.
Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.
The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.
In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.
The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
The problem with this cunning plan to immigrant-ize western nations to backfill the domestic demographic decline is that the immigrants – as a whole – are a drag on growth (via politically-correct benefits, extra policing, and border enforcements) as opposed to the economy-improving growth dynamos that the United Nations assumed any sentient-credit-consuming-being would be in the year 2000.

Even the world’s richest man is starting to get the joke that the new world order’s cunning plan is not working…

Europe will be devastated by African refugees if they don’t “make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent,” and the solution lies in European nations committing billions of taxpayer money towards overseas aid.

According to Gates, the combination of explosive population growth in Africa combined with Europe’s notoriously generous open-border migrant welfare programs – as illustrated by the ‘German attitude to refugees’ have incentivised migrants to flood into Europe.

“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.”

While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot “take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”

Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it “more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”

–Bill Gates

President Trump Pulls Out USA of The Paris Agreement

President Trump just announced that the U.S. will “withdraw” out of the Paris Climate Accord. But “begin negotiations to re-enter”.

Trump said:

“We will cease honoring all non-binding agreements”, and “will stop contributing to the green climate fund”.
“I can not in good conscience support a deal that harms the United States”.

“The bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair to the United States”.
“This agreement is less about climate and more about other countries getting a financial advantage over the United States”.
“The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

“Fourteen days of carbon emissions alone would totally wipe out the U.S. contribution to reduction by 2030”

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord… could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025.”

“India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid.”

“We need all forms of available American energy or our country will be at grave risk of brown-outs and black-outs.”

“Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”

“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work… We’re going to grow rapidly.”
“No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.”

“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”

“My job as President is to do everything within my power to give America a level playing field.”
“The same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost America trillions.”

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

“Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia, & across the world should not have more to say w/ respect to the US economy than our own citizens.”

“Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty.”

“It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal which protects the environment, our companies, our citizens.”

Scott Pruitt: “America finally has a leader who answers only to the people.” “This is an historic restoration of American economic independence.”

The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.

UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs

According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several

By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs

It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power

The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters

The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to

Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030

The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions

Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress

With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy

The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.

The NGA-The Billion Spying Agency

While most Americans would consider the CIA, and perhaps the NSA, household names, one U.S. spy agency – whose headquarters surpasses the U.S. Capitol in size – has managed to keep to the shadows while possessing cutting edge tools of the surveillance trade.

Called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), even former President Barack Obama didn’t know of its existence when he first took office – despite that the agency employs some 15,400 people…

“So, what do you [do]?” Obama asked a customer at a Washington, D.C., Five Guys hamburgers in May 2009. 

“I work at NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,” he answered.

“Outstanding,” then-president Obama asserted. “How long have you been doing that?” 

“Six years.”

“So, explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial …” Obama asked, unable to recall the agency’s full name.

Timidly, the man replied,

“Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery.”

“Obama appeared dumbfounded,” Foreign Policy’s James Bamford reports. “Eight years after that videotape aired, the NGA remains by far the most shadowy member of the Big Five spy agencies,* which include the CIA and the National Security Agency.”

  • U.S. Big Five spy agencies:

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

National Security Agency (NSA)

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

The NGA’s secretive identity belies the agency’s massive physical size and the scope of its surveillance activities, as James Bamford continues,

“Completed in 2011 at a cost of $1.4 billion, the main building measures four football fields long and covers as much ground as two aircraft carriers.

In 2016, the agency purchased 99 acres in St. Louis to construct additional buildings at a cost of $1.75 billion to accommodate the growing workforce, with 3,000 employees already in the city.

“The NGA is to pictures what the NSA is to voices. Its principal function is to analyze the billions of images and miles of video captured by drones in the Middle East and spy satellites circling the globe.

But because it has largely kept its ultra-high-resolution cameras pointed away from the United States, according to a variety of studies, the agency has never been involved in domestic spy scandals like its two far more famous siblings, the CIA and the NSA.

However, there’s reason to believe that this will change under President Donald Trump.”

Originally tasked primarily with cartography – before a mammoth expansion, the spy arm had been called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency – until a name and mission switch in 2003 gave the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency its name, with the hyphen allowing a three-letter acronym so enamored by the government.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, whose fondness for imagery intelligence became known when he served as a general during World War II, created the National Photographic Interpretation Center shortly before leaving office – an agency also later absorbed by the NGA.

Now, the NGA works in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force to analyze the staggering amount of data collected through aerial surveillance abroad – mostly by unmanned aerial systems, such as drones with high-powered cameras.

According to at least one source, as of 2013, the NGA was integral in the analysis of surveillance data pertaining to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

Revelations on the depth and breadth of the Central Intelligence Agency’s domestic capabilities, long believed out of its territory, was exposed by Wikileaks Vault 7 recently to be on par with National Security Agency programs – so much so, analysts say it constitutes a duplicate Big Brother.

Data provided to the NGA by military officials has assisted in various U.S. operations in the Middle East by tracking vehicles believed responsible for planting improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and for monitoring hot spots for insurgent breakouts.

But the NGA hardly only keeps to support operations, as David Brown – author of the book, “Deep State – Inside the Government Secrecy Industry” – explained:

“Before the trigger was pulled on NEPTUNE’S SPEAR, the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, SEAL Team Six had access to a perfect replica of the Abbottabad compound where the terrorist mastermind was hiding.

The details for the replica were gathered by the NGA, which used laser radar and imagery to construct a 3D rendering of the compound.

How precise were its measurements and analysis? The NGA figured out how many people lived at the compound, their gender, and even their heights.

But the NGA didn’t stop there: Its calculations also helped the pilots of the stealth Black Hawks know precisely where to land.”

With a combined budget request for 2017 of $70.3 billion, the National and Military Intelligence Programs – NGA falls under the latter – have seen a quickening of support from the authoritarian-leaning, pro-military Trump administration.

This and additional factors – such as the astonishingly sophisticated equipment at the agency’s disposal – have ignited fears the NGA could be granted authority to bring its expert microscope into focus against the American people.

“While most of the technological capacities are classified, an anonymous NGA analyst told media the agency can determine the structure of buildings and objects from a distance, has some of the most sophisticated facial recognition software on the planet and uses sensors on satellites and drones that can see through thick clouds for ‘all-weather’ imagery analysis,” reports

Efforts to bolster NGA’s innovate staff pool ratcheted up on Thursday, as Business Wire reported,

“From navigating a U.S. aircraft to making national policy decisions, to responding to natural disasters: today’s U.S. armed forces rely on Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) to meet mission requirements.

As the nation’s primary source of GEOINT for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Intelligence Community, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) depends on the National Geospatial-Intelligence College (NGC) to produce top-tier talent to deliver intelligence with a decisive advantage.

Today, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) announced that it has been awarded a five-year, $86 million contract by NGA-NGC to lead the Learning Management and Advancement Program (LMAP) that will provide high-quality learning solutions to equip a diverse workforce with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet current and future GEOINT mission requirements.”

Bamford points out for Foreign Policy the Trump administration intimated a significant expansion of spying on mosques and Islamic centers, while others admonish said surveillance could put Black Lives Matter and other protest groups in the NGA’s silent crosshairs.

Of distinct concern for privacy advocates are drones with uncanny zooming capabilities – features used against U.S. citizens before. 

Bamford continues,

“In 2016, unbeknownst to many city officials, police in Baltimore began conducting persistent aerial surveillance using a system developed for military use in Iraq.

Few civilians have any idea how advanced these military eye-in-the-sky drones have become. 

Among them is ARGUS-IS, the world’s highest-resolution camera with 1.8 billion pixels. Invisible from the ground at nearly four miles in the air, it uses a technology known as ‘persistent stare’ – the equivalent of 100 Predator drones peering down at a medium-size city at once – to track everything that moves.

“With the capability to watch an area of 10 or even 15 square miles at a time, it would take just two drones hovering over Manhattan to continuously observe and follow all outdoor human activity, night and day.

It can zoom in on an object as small as a stick of butter on a plate and store up to 1 million terabytes of data a day.

 That capacity would allow analysts to look back in time over days, weeks, or months. Technology is in the works to enable drones to remain aloft for years at a time.”

With cutting edge technology, a rapid enlargement underway, and billions in budgetary funds at the ready, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is the cloaked, mute sibling of the nefarious Intelligence Community… 

But it’s time to pull the protective shell off this potential ticking time bomb before reining it in becomes an impossibility…

The Plan By United Nations To Depopulate 95% Of World By 2030

The United Nations (UN) for some people conjure up images of a benevolent organization intended for the preservation of human life wherever conflict occurs, and of encouraging international cooperation and peace.
Far from this peaceful image, however, is their little-publicized plan to depopulate 95% of the world by 2030. Or as they have called it, Agenda 21.

United Nations plot to depopulate 95% of the world by 2030

Agenda 21 was United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development and was apparently developed as a means of restructuring the world population to lessen environmental impact and achieve an improved quality of life.

One of the main ways of achieving this, however, is through encouraged and direct depopulation.

As the UN put it:

“comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, government, and major groups, in every area in which humans have impact on the environment.”

Although the language used in the original 70-page report (National Implementation of Agenda 21 – A Summary) that the UN published on Agenda 21 is vague and open to interpretation, as well as plausible deniability, the intentions in certain sections are clear:

Depopulation to lessen environmental impact and stop overpopulation leading to instability.

While this sounds like a positive thing in some aspects, mere policy changes at governmental level alone cannot create an environment where big enough changes can come about in a short space of time.

To achieve such huge scale depopulation with a relatively short deadline the actions were taken would have to be drastic. Either a world war, global epidemic or some kind of widespread starvation caused by massive crop failures would be the only likely ways of achieving this. 

The idea also raises the question of,

Which 5% of the global population would be saved?

 Would these be those strong and hardy enough to survive the conditions placed on the earth that would kill off the remaining 95%?

Or perhaps the survivors would be chosen selectively from the elite and wealthy?

Whether such a plan could ever actually be successful is another matter.

Plans of this size and scope would require the collusion and agreement of at least every first world government in the world, not to mention that the amount of resources and effort that would have to go into keeping something like this covered up would be astronomical. 

Read the full document: “National Implementation of Agenda 21 – A Summary”:

The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) Violations by Jehovah’s Witnesses(

Every human has a right to believe whatever they want in whatever way they wish as per Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). There are limits to such rights insofar as individuals cannot infringe on another’s rights when exerting those rights as per Article 29.2.
Many former members of Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that the religion denies them their human rights. These human rights violations are as follows:

Article 1 – Former members are not treated in a spirit of brotherhood. Former members are despised and shunned by remaining members.

Article 2 – If everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms as set out in the UDHR without religious distinction, then it is incumbent upon religious organisations to consider the rights and freedoms of its religious members and former members. In other words, they must recognize and comply with the UDHR. Jehovah’s Witnesses think that because they are a religious organisation, they do not need to comply. This is false reasoning. See violation of Article 30 below.

Article 4 – Former members are held in a state of mental slavery – shunning of such persons will continue until such a time as former members return to being members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Former members will enjoy a lifetime of shunning if they never return to the religion.

Article 5 – Shunning is a form of psychological torture. It is a cruel, inhumane and degrading form of treatment and punishment.

Article 7 – If all are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the UDHR and against any incitement to such discrimination, then Jehovah’s Witnesses must desist from shunning former members and desist from writing articles in their publications requiring members to shun former members.

Article 8 – Considering Article 2 & Article 30 of the UDHR, nations need to recognize and insist that religious organisations comply with the UDHR. Religions cannot disregard the UDHR simply because they are a religion. Maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses would not find themselves in their current predicament in Russia if they complied fully with the UDHR.

Article 10 – Jehovah’s Witnesses have judicial committees and meetings that are held in order to discipline members who break their rules and regulations. It has been proven time and time again that these proceedings are not fair or impartial. They have secret policies and regulations that members are not privy to. Furthermore, they only inform members in “broad terms” of any proceedings brought against them. This does not allow a member to defend themselves properly.

Article 12 – Many former members have experienced harassment in varying forms and for various reasons by Jehovah’s Witness elders and other overly-zealous members.

Article 14 – Regardless of religious orientation, one has a right to marry whomever they wish with the free and full consent of the intending party. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses penalize members who do not marry Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Article 18 – Jehovah’s Witnesses violate the very article that they invoke to ensure their religious freedom. How? They deny members the right to change religion. If any member decides to change religion, they will disassociate them and require all remaining members to shun that former member.

Article 19 – Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow freedom of thought. Any opinions or expressions that go against Jehovah’s Witnesses current teachings, beliefs and doctrines will be dealt with harshly. Members who do not comply will be labeled an apostate, disfellowshipped and shunned.

Article 20.2 – If no one is compelled to belong to an association, Jehovah’s Witnesses need to desist from shunning members who no longer want to associate with them in a religious context.

Article 21.1 – Jehovah’s Witnesses do not allow members to get involved in politics. If any member wishes to, the church will disassociate them and they will be shunned.

Article 23.1 – Jehovah’s Witnesses restrict access to certain vocations. For example, if a member chooses to join the army they will be disassociated and shunned.

Article 25.2 – Jehovah’s Witnesses will disfellowship any member who has a child out of wedlock. While that member remains shunned, it is likely that the child will also be shunned, or endure pain that other children are ever likely to experience.

Article 26.1 – Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny their members some education. However, they will inhibit or restrict member’s congregational privileges if they pursue third level education. Although not a direct violation of an educational right, it does severely restrict members vocational pursuits.

Article 26.2 – The restriction of education is directly related to the deprivation of understanding, tolerance and friendship among those of a different persuasion. Education is one of the strongest factors associated with social capital in general and greater trust and higher tolerance in particular: the better educated individuals are, the more likely they are to have high levels of interpersonal trust and low levels of discriminatory attitudes and negative attitudes towards migrants (Hooghe et al. 2008; Stouffer 1955; Maykovich 1975; Quillian 1995; Scheepers, Gijsberts and Coenders 2002; Kunovich 2004; Semyonov, Rainmann and Tom-Tov 2004). Jehovah’s Witness members have a restricted worldview and are less understanding & tolerant of non-members and severely limit their friendships with outsiders.

Article 28 – Socially speaking, how can the rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR be fully realized if religions like Jehovah’s Witnesses restrict them?

Article 30 – Jehovah’s Witnesses flagrantly disregard this article of the UDHR by thinking they are exempt from adhering to it simply because they are a religion. They are not exempt. No one is exempt. As per Article 29.1, we must all do out part to exercise our rights and respect the rights of others.

Jehovah’s Witnesses violate 18 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights either in whole or in part. It is most noteworthy to point out that most of these violations are directly related to their shunning policy. If Jehovah’s Witnesses ended their shunning policy today, the vast majority of their human rights violations would disappear.

Unfortunately, Jehovah’s Witness leaders believe that the bible mandates that they shun former members. They quote 1 Corinthians 5:13 where it says “Expel the wicked person from among you” (New International Version). Yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation of “wicked” is both broad and vague. It’s left to the interpretation of elders to determine whether a person is wicked. In the real-world sense, the evidence suggests that all who leave the religion, all who question the religion, and all who commit acts of perceived wrongdoing (including those taking certain prohibited vocations, or accepting blood to save their life) are “wicked”. Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witnesses use of shunning is both extreme and cruel as the shunning encompasses those who cannot be categorized as “wicked” when one considers the previously quoted scripture in context.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Document bellow: