• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

News

Analysis: Amazon's About-Face on Facial Recognition Accuracy

The following is an excerpt from "About-Face: Examining Amazon’s Shifting Story on Facial Recognition Accuracy" by Jake Laperruqe

People shouldn’t have to worry that police are going to improperly investigate or arrest them because a poorly designed computer system misidentified them, but facial recognition surveillance could soon make that risk a reality. And, as detailed in the timeline below, over the last ten months, Amazon, a major vendor of this technology to law enforcement, has exacerbated that risk by putting out inconsistent information on the “confidence threshold,” a key means of determining the accuracy of matches produced by facial recognition systems. 

It’s time to set the record straight on how improper use of confidence thresholds by law enforcement could increase the frequency of misidentification, and how Amazon’s shifting story has obfuscated the very real risks present in the technology.

The development and spread of facial recognition continue to outpace meaningful oversight of law enforcement’s use of the technology, and Congressional inquiries about misidentification risks have gone unanswered. The use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement, particularly without proper checks, presents a variety of threats to civil rights and civil liberties, including free speech, equal protection, due process, and privacy, as discussed in a recent report by The Constitution Project at the Project On Government Oversight’s (POGO) Task Force on Facial Recognition Surveillance. These threats are of immediate importance: law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels already use facial recognition. The FBI oversees a massive program that conducts an average of over 4,000 facial recognition scans per month. As POGO reported in The Daily Beast, Amazon pitched its facial recognition technology to Immigration and Customs Enforcement last summer.

You can read the rest of the story here: About-Face

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

A Supreme Court "Bromance"?

Above image: Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (left) and Chief Justice John G. Roberts (right), Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following is an excerpt from “Conservatives' takeover of Supreme Court stalled by John Roberts-Brett Kavanaugh bromance” by Richard Wolf

WASHINGTON – The conservative takeover of the Supreme Court that was anticipated following President Donald Trump's two selections has been stalled by a budding bromance between the senior and junior justices.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, have voted in tandem on nearly every case that's come before them since Kavanaugh joined the court in October. They've been more likely to side with the court's liberal justices than its other conservatives.

The two justices, both alumni of the same District of Columbia-based federal appeals court, have split publicly only once in 25 official decisions. Their partnership has extended, though less reliably, to orders the court has issued on abortion funding, immigration and the death penalty in the six months since Kavanaugh's bitter Senate confirmation battle ended in a 50-48 vote.

You can read the rest of the article here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/07/supreme-court-bromance-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh-tie-up-court/3342377002/

]]>

Report: Health worker who spread measles had been vaccinated

Above image: a photo of a measles rash, which is typically uncomfortable but non life-threatening.[hr]

The following is an excerpt from "‘Vague symptoms’ explains delay in confirming measles case, MUHC says" by Aaron Derfel

The employee at the McGill University Health Centre who contracted the measles  — and who might have inadvertently exposed dozens of patients to the highly contagious virus for several days at the end of March — had received the standard two shots years earlier, an MUHC infectious-diseases specialist said Monday.

The employee, whose name or position has not been disclosed, had returned recently from a vacation in the Caribbean, where it’s likely that he contracted the virus, Dr. Marie-Astrid Lefebvre told reporters.

Initially, the employee suffered from “vague symptoms,” which explained the delay in confirming his measles diagnosis. From March 23 to March 27, the employee worked while contagious in the adult intensive-care unit, cardiac surgery unit, infectious diseases clinic and cardiovascular, heart failure and heart transplant clinic at the Glen site in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

“We believe that the individual in question acquired the infection while on a trip to the Caribbean roughly three weeks before the start of his symptoms,” Lefebvre said. “We do not believe it was an acquisition from Montreal itself, and we do not believe we have any secondary infections as well.”

You can read the rest of the article by clicking here.


]]>

Lara Logan: Who’s Pulling Strings in the Media

Former CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent speaks with Mark Levin about the media, why we are the way we are, and who’s pulling the strings.

]]>

Is "The Swamp" Being Drained? Unscientific Poll Results

Most of those polled believe the Washington DC "swamp" will never be drained. But a significant number believe it has partially been drained.

Here are the results from the latest unscientific SharylAttkisson.com poll:

We asked:

I think "The Swamp..."

Is largely drained >1%

Has been somewhat drained 40%

Will never be drained 59%

Doesn't exist 0%

]]>

TV drug ads and Iran's alleged deception: Full Measure

Above image: new alleged photographic evidence from Iran's nuclear files[hr]

The US is one of only two places on the planet that allow prescription drug ads on TV.  In fact, many probably don't remember that TV ads in America were forbidden until the late 1990s.

Today, they are allowed with supposedly strict requirements to disclose risks and side effects.

We investigate Sunday on Full Measure and find the pharmaceutical industry using a variety of tactics to allegedly distract from those lists of risks-- or keep from disclosing them at all.[hr]

Above image: an FDA example of a non-compliant drug ad[hr]

Also this week, James Rosen joins us to provide some clarity on a confusing issue: Iran's nuclear intentions.

President Trump has said Iran might be working on prohibited nuclear weapons initiatives—several years after the country signed a deal to halt. That puts him at odds with his own CIA Director who says the opposite.[hr]

Above image: new alleged photographic evidence from Iran's nuclear files[hr]

Now, as James will show us, there's new evidence that shows Iran may not have disclosed everything it was supposed to when signing the nuclear "deal" under the Obama administration.

We never waste time rehashing stories you've already heard all week. Watch us live, on demand, or replays online. See how --below!

]]>

Julian Assange, rape allegations, smears, and shades of grey

Above image: Julian Assange (left) and PR associate Trevor FitzGibbon[hr]

Whatever the truth about Julian Assange's innocence or guilt on a number of accusations, we know one thing for sure: he, WikiLeaks and their associates were targeted by a powerful smear campaign.

The smear campaign is documented in the internal documents of a government contractor.

Additionally, most people know little about what was behind the rape allegations against Assange. According to reports, two women separately claimed that they were having consensual sex with Assange but changed their mind midway through. They claim that Assange would not refrain once they changed their minds, so the consensual sex became rape.

The sexual assault charges against Assange were dropped in 2017.

However, some U.S. officials have raised them as proof of Assange's poor character after his arrest today.

Assange isn't the only one in the WikiLeaks circle who was publicly accused of rape or other sexual crimes that were never prosecuted.

[hr]The following is an excerpt from a "Full Measure" report entitled "Shades of Grey." The full report follows that.[hr]

(Excerpt) ... In 2016, WikiLeaks published embarrassing insider emails of Hillary Clinton officials and the Democratic National Committee, and WikiLeaks was accused of working with Russia and being pro-Trump. There’s little doubt there are powerful efforts to smear WikiLeaks and its supporters.

Government contractors circulated this dossier in 2010, a wide-ranging strategy to combat “The WikiLeaks Threat,” to “sabotage or discredit” WikiLeaks supporters using “social media exploitation” and “disinformation.”[hr]

[hr]FitzGibbon: It shows the photos and the names of the individuals that were supportive of WikiLeaks or worked with WikiLeaks

Sharyl: And the PR documents specifically discussed going after these people.

FitzGibbon: Ways to discredit to target to smear them.

Several targets were FitzGibbons’ clients. Two were discredited by sex claims alleged in the media but never prosecuted just like FitzGibbon. WikiLeaks’ Assange and a key associate Jacob Appelbaum.

With Assange, two women told a journalist that consensual sex with him when he was in Sweden for a speech, turned into rape. A rape investigation hung over his head for seven years—before it was dropped last year. Anonymous accusers started a website to publicly accuse Appelbaum of groping and rape. He was forced out of his job, but also never charged. In the end, a smear campaign can often take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding a case of 'he said she said.' [hr]

The full story is transcribed below. The video link is here.[hr]

Shades of Grey: A Full Measure Investigation

From the fall of Hollywood’s Harvey Weinstein to the political demise of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, there’s no shortage of sexual abuse allegations against famous men. The MeToo movement has liberated women to talk about long-tolerated misconduct. But it’s also led to whispers about the grey area between improper harassment and criminal assault. And questions about whether it’s now easier for people to get smeared by unproven — or even false— allegations. Today’s cover story is: Shades of Grey.

FitzGibbon: If you’ve got two believable stories, you’ve got— you can take anybody down.

Trevor FitzGibbon claims it happened to him. His story begins in December 2015, when he ran his own progressive PR firm and got a fateful call from his company’s vice president.

FitzGibbon: He said, “You have a problem.” And I said, “What's wrong?” He said, “Well, in the past 48 hours, H.R. has gotten six phone calls all accusing you of sexual harassment.” And my heart kind of fell.

Before that call, FitzGibbon had angered some fellow liberals for his support of Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton and for representing clients connected to WikiLeaks. He represented Bradley Manning— who passed classified materials to WikiLeaks. Edward Snowden— the government whistleblower WikiLeaks once helped. The journalist Snowden leaked to: Glenn Greenwald And he represented WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. The WikiLeaks connection will come into play later. FitzGibbon says after the HR phone call, before he even knew who his accusers were, they had gone to the national press.

FitzGibbon: And it's really interesting to see the Huffington Post because at first they say it was harassment. A few hours later it was assault. And then, that got spun into rape culture.

Inside of 2 weeks— FitzGibbon’s staff had turned on him, his company shut down. With help from feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, three women filed criminal complaints. One of them, attorney Jesselyn Radack, claimed FitzGibbon— “touched her breast” against her will, then days later, when she met up with him at a hotel, raped her.

FitzGibbon: It was 100 percent consensual.

Sharyl: You did have sexual relations with her?

FitzGibbon: Yes but that was 100 percent consensual.

Here’s where shades of grey color the picture. FitzGibbon admits to “inappropriate behavior” toward female employees, and to cheating on his wife with Radack, but nothing criminal. Evidence he gave prosecutors included friendly sexual text messages and photos allegedly sent by Radack before and after the alleged assaults.

FitzGibbon: Text messages, photos that she sent me after the first alleged assault took place. And then afterwards, being very happy.

After reviewing the text messages and conducting a lengthy investigation, prosecutors “declined to file criminal charges.”

Sharyl: So for a year you lived under the cloud of possible prosecution for rape?

FitzGibbon: Yes.

Sharyl: And what happened in that timeframe to you?

FitzGibbon: I couldn't defend myself in the press. I was vilified in the national media and on social media and the accusers— and whatever political machine came after me— used it to poison the water to make it almost impossible for me to get work.

Sharyl: You lost your business.

FitzGibbon: I lost the business, lost my home.

Attorney Nicole Smith defends companies against sexual harassment claims and isn’t connected to FitzGibbon’s case. She says the current environment can breed confusion and even false allegations.

Smith: “Me too” movement is phenomenal, but it also is a catchphrase for conduct that really, is every scope of any kind of allegation from a slight that someone might feel that they had been disrespected to actual criminal conduct. So couching all of that conduct in one term is difficult then when you try and unravel individual claims.

Some victims’ advocates say accusers should automatically be believed. The recent conviction of entertainer Bill Cosby for allegations that were 14 years old seemed to make the case. But it’s not always cut and dry.

Sharyl: Are you finding that in this environment of “women should be believed” that there is a downside?

Smith: So often in these cases, I think what we're faced with is it's a “He Said, She Said” thing. There's not a lot of witnesses, if any, ever present. So to say that you're just always going to believe the woman really doesn't get us anywhere.

It may also open the possibility that accusations can be weaponized to smear a target for hidden motives. FitzGibbon began to suspect he was the target of a smear right after it was announced he wouldn’t be charged yet he was attacked in a national press release.

FitzGibbon: And that press release was a letter signed by 72 national organizations pledging to never hire me or work with me again.

Sharyl: What did you think of when you saw that?

FitzGibbon: It was one of the first times that I realized that something else is at play.

He’d sold his house, was split from his wife and children, including infant twins and was too discredited to find work. FitzGibbon now thinks powerful people may have come after him because of his PR work for enemies of the mainstream Democratic party and the stateincluding WikiLeaks. In 2016, WikiLeaks published embarrassing insider emails of Hillary Clinton officials and the Democratic National Committee, and WikiLeaks was accused of working with Russia and being pro-Trump. There’s little doubt there are powerful efforts to smear WikiLeaks and its supporters. Government contractors circulated this dossier in 2010, a wide-ranging strategy to combat “The WikiLeaks Threat,” to “sabotage or discredit” WikiLeaks supporters using “social media exploitation” and “disinformation.”

FitzGibbon: It shows the photos and the names of the individuals that were supportive of WikiLeaks or worked with WikiLeaks

Sharyl: And the PR documents specifically discussed going after these people.

FitzGibbon: Ways to discredit to target to smear them.

Several targets were FitzGibbons’ clients. Two were discredited by sex claims alleged in the media but never prosecuted just like FitzGibbon. WikiLeaks’ Assange and a key associate Jacob Appelbaum. With Assange, two women told a journalist that consensual sex with him when he was in Sweden for a speech, turned into rape. A rape investigation hung over his head for seven years—before it was dropped last year. Anonymous accusers started a website to publicly accuse Appelbaum of groping and rape. He was forced out of his job, but also never charged. In the end, a smear campaign can often take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding a case of 'he said she said.' And that’s the problem. FitzGibbon asked a lawyers’ disciplinary body to punish Radack for alleged false allegations. They declined, saying the “question was close” but “The truth about what occurred in private is sometimes hard to prove.” Even if someone isn't ultimately prosecuted, they may find they’re tainted just because this aura of inappropriateness or criminality lingers over them regardless of what the outcome is in the court of law.

Smith: And the costs that they incur, obviously representing themselves in that proceeding.

Sharyl: Did you do any of these things— any of these things that the women said you did?

Fitzgibbon: In regards to being flirtatious?

Sharyl: Anything that they said was inappropriate?

Fitzgibbon: You know, I'll say this. I was accused of assault and I was accused of first degree assault which is rape. And I didn't do any of that.

FitzGibbon has now filed a civil suit against Radack alleging malicious prosecution and defamation. She declined our requests for an interview due to the litigation.

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/shades-of-grey-07-24-2018

]]>

Unscientific Poll: What Should be Censored?

Overwhelmingly anti-censorship results to last week's SharylAttkisson.com poll. Ninety-eight percent (98%) of respondents say either nothing or only illegal activity should be censored online.

This defies the trend by government, social media and other third parties that are increasingly censoring information and accounts online.

We asked:

What, if anything, should the government be able to censor online?

Results are below:

Censor nothing (45%)

Censor only illegal activity (53%)

Censor everything (0%)

Proceed as they are now (1%)

I don’t know (1%)

]]>
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad