Migrants Used a Horrifying Tactic, Border Agents Reveal

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Daily Caller. Border Patrol agents revealed in interviews that the migrants storming the U.S.-Mexico border over the weekend were using women and children as human shields as they launched rocks at agents.

Border Patrol unleashed tear gas and pepper balls to disperse the crowd of migrants trying to cross the border in Tijuana, Mexico on Sunday. According to San Diego Chief Border Patrol Agent Rodney Scott, agents did not use dispersion techniques until after migrants had struck several agents with projectiles.

“Several agents were actually struck by rocks,” Scott said, before revealing that the migrants pushed women and children to the front of their group to discourage agents from responding to rock-throwing with force.

“What we saw over and over yesterday was that the group — the caravan, as we call them — would push women and children to the front and then begin, basically, rocking our agents,” Scott asserted. . .

Judd explained that the situation at the border yesterday was “unprecedented” and that migrants had never tried before to rush a port of entry. The Border Patrol veteran explained that illegal immigrants often abandon woman and children while being chased by authorities, knowing that they will hinder officers while they abscond. (Read more from “Migrants Used a Horrifying Tactic, Border Agents Reveal” HERE)

_____________________________________________

Border Patrol: 42 Arrested for Illegally Crossing U.S.-Mexico Border

By Fox 5. Forty-two people were arrested on suspicion of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border after members of the migrant caravan in Tijuana marched toward the border and prompted a five-hour shutdown at the San Ysidro crossing, a Border Patrol official said Monday.

San Diego Sector Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott told CNN Monday morning that the 42 people, mostly men, were arrested Sunday on the U.S. side of the border.

At least three Border Patrol agents were hit with rocks during Sunday’s clash, but none were seriously injured, and agents used tear gas canisters to disperse crowds at the border fence, Scott told CNN.

The American Civil Liberties Union released a statement criticizing the decision to use tear gas. (Read more from “Border Patrol: 42 Arrested for Illegally Crossing Us-Mexico Border” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Chief Justice Roberts’ Troubling Comment Is Worse Than You Think

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Chief Justice John Roberts erroneously believes that his court is supreme to the other independent branches of government, yet he evidently doesn’t believe the Supreme Court is supreme to the lower courts of his own branch of government.

As a drive-by Thanksgiving curse to the nation last week, John Roberts took the extraordinary step of answering a question directly posed to his office by the AP regarding Trump’s frustration with lower court judges violating national sovereignty by issuing lawless injunctions. After Judge Jon Tigar took the unprecedented step of placing an injunction on our border admission policies and violated all legal norms and rules of standing, Trump said, “This was an Obama judge, and I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore.”

When presented with the question by AP, rather than following tradition and simply saying “no comment,” Roberts responded, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” He concluded, “The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Despite the dead news cycle of Thanksgiving eve, this comment set off a firestorm of headlines blaring the news that the “Chief Justice hits Trump in rare rebuke.” Undoubtedly, Roberts knew exactly how the media would convey his remark.

This comment is even more troubling than many realize, and it has nothing to do with Trump. It has everything to do with dangerous judicial supremacy of the robed priesthood and a reluctance to actually reform that priesthood from his perch as high priest.

As I’ve observed in painstaking detail over the past few years, despite the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, the lower courts are more liberal than ever and are violating the most basic legal doctrines of standing and the plenary power doctrine on immigration. Yet the Supreme Court has continuously been slow to take up the appeals from these unprecedented injunctions and often refuses to take up the appeals at all, even though these rulings violate settled law on immigration. Even when it does, the decisions fail to categorically rebuke these lower court judges, as Clarence Thomas has done in his own writings.

As such, I have concluded that despite the optimism on the Right of a more conservative Supreme Court, there won’t be enough Clarence Thomases to shut down the endless lawless lawfare in the lower courts. Worse, because the political class has already put the Supreme Court on notice for being “political,” Roberts is even more reluctant to aggressively take emergency appeals and categorically rebuke those judges. As Vanderbilt Law School Professor Brian Fitzpatrick predicted on my podcast several months ago, Roberts and several other justices will be “conservative” in the sense that they will be cautious to aggressively swat down these lower court opinions.

And let’s not forget that while the other branches continue to regard lower courts as supreme and John Roberts fails to act, there is irreversible damage from these injunctions on our national security policy. “It’s very concerning,” Professor Fitzpatrick told me, “because the Supreme Court is conservative institutionally … they do not like to get involved in matters until the issue has received percolation. They like legal issues to have been bounced around in the lower courts for years before they drop in and settle the issue.”

Thus, Roberts and his colleagues are allowing every radical lower court trend to gain traction. There is nothing out of bounds in his mind — except for Trump’s frustration with this process.

If lower courts are violating the law on the one hand and if members of the other branches of government are saying things that politically offend the Chief Justice on the other hand, which one should he be quicker to rebuke? Roberts has been completely silent about lawless lower court judges, but suddenly, he’s quick on the draw when it comes to rebuking the president — the executive branch — for simply making a political statement about the bad opinions, which is what one would expect from a president of either party. Is Roberts now suggesting that the judiciary is above reproach?

“The independent judiciary” is a mindless bromide being used to silence debate, and just like the canard of “separation of church and state,” it is not in the Constitution. The Constitution says the exact opposite. No branch of government can make itself supreme or independent from the reach of the other branches’ powers. In fact, the entire judiciary and its structure was created by Congress. Congress has full authority to strip Roberts’ court of all appellate jurisdiction and abolish the lower courts altogether. As Roberts’ colleague, Clarence Thomas, recently wrote, “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”

Accordingly, if Congress were to exercise this power, would Roberts bemoan the assault on the “independent judiciary”?

Turns out the Constitution itself didn’t respect an independent judiciary, because it gave Congress the power to regulate its jurisdiction. As Edmund Randolph, the first attorney general of the United States, said in 1790, “The Supreme Court, though inherent in the Constitution, was to receive the first motion from Congress; the inferior courts must have slept forever without the pleasure of Congress.”

Roberts believes in judicial supremacism. But that belief makes his utter callous disregard of lower court tyranny all the more indefensible. Roberts has already allowed an egregious global warming lawsuit to proceed; he has allowed courts to mandate that Trump continue Obama’s discretionary policies; and he has enabled the Ninth Circuit to force Arizona to follow Obama’s amnesty rather than our sovereignty laws on the books.

The real question is how many of the other justices will follow the lead of Roberts and go out of their way to show that they are not deferential to Trump, even when the law requires that result? Justices Alito and Kavanaugh did not join Thomas and Gorsuch in trying to stop the insane global warming lawsuit.

The more Roberts continues this duplicity of wielding judicial supremacism over the president but taking a hands-off approach to his lawless minions in the lower courts, he will learn the lesson of Scalia’s prophecy in his blockbuster Obergefell dissent: “With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.” (For more from the author of “Chief Justice Roberts’ Troubling Comment Is Worse Than You Think” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mueller Claims Manafort Violated Plea Deal

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Daily Caller. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to the FBI and federal prosecutors in violation of a plea agreement he reached in September, the special counsel’s office claimed in a court filing on Monday.

Prosecutors said that after Manafort entered a plea agreement on Sept. 14, he “committed federal crimes by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Special Counsel’s Office on a variety of subject matters, which constitute breaches of the agreement.”

Manafort, 69, entered the plea deal a day before he was set to go to trial in Washington, D.C., on charges related to his lobbying work for the Ukraine government through 2014. Manafort had already been convicted in Virginia on Aug. 21 on tax fraud and bank fraud charges related to his Ukraine work.

Manafort has reportedly met numerous times with the special counsel’s office, which is investigating whether anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

The three-page court filing does not reveal what Manafort allegedly lied about, though prosecutors said they will file a detailed report laying out Manafort’s alleged “crimes and lies, including those after signing the plea agreement herein.” (Read more from “Mueller Claims Manafort Violated Plea Deal” HERE)

____________________________________________

Trump Raises Questions About Mueller Final Report

By The Washington Examiner. President Trump on Monday cast doubt on the credibility of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report on his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, asserting that some who worked on his presidential campaign were never contacted by the special counsel.

“When Mueller does his final report, will he be covering all of his conflicts of interest in a preamble, will he be recommending action on all of the crimes of many kinds from those ‘on the other side’ (whatever happened to Podesta?), and will he be putting in statements from hundreds of people closely involved with my campaign who never met, saw or spoke to a Russian during this period?”

“So many campaign workers, people inside from the beginning, ask me why they have not been called (they want to be). There was NO Collusion & Mueller knows it!” Trump said in a pair of tweets Monday.

(Read more from “Trump Raises Questions About Mueller Final Report” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Scientists Prove All Humans Descended From Two People

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By NZ Herald. All modern humans descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, scientists say.

Scientists surveyed the genetic “bar codes” of five million animals – including humans – from 100,000 different species and deduced that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.

These bar codes, or snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells, suggest that it’s not just people who came from a single pair of beings, but nine out of every 10 animal species as well, Daily Mail reports. . .

Stoeckle and Thaler concluded that 90 per cent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250,000 years ago – throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.

“This conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could, ” Thaler admitted. (Read more from “Scientists Prove All Humans Descended From Two People” HERE)

______________________________________________

All Humans Are Descended From Just Two People and a Catastrophic Event Almost Wiped out All Species 100,000 Years Ago, Scientists Claim

By Daily Mail. . .They mined ‘big data’ insights from the world’s fast-growing genetic databases and reviewed a large literature in evolutionary theory, including Darwin.

Dr Stoeckle said: ‘At a time when humans place so much emphasis on individual and group differences, maybe we should spend more time on the ways in which we resemble one another and the rest of the animal kingdom.’

The conclusions throw up considerable mystery as to why the need for human life to start again was needed such a relatively short time ago, especially since the last known extinction we know of was during the time of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

This opens up the possibility of an inbuilt human evolutionary process wherein we break down and die out, leaving the need to start from scratch. . .

The ‘mitochondrial DNA’ examined in the research is that which mothers pass down from generation to generation and it showed the ‘absence of human exceptionalism.’ (Read more from “All Humans Are Descended From Just Two People and a Catastrophic Event Almost Wiped out All Species 100,000 Years Ago, Scientists Claim” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

No Judge Has Jurisdiction to Erase Our Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

No court can ever force the president to allow any alien to enter the country. No such lawsuit could ever have legitimate standing, and no such decision could have any constitutional moorings. If we don’t understand that, we are no longer a sovereign Republic.

Monday night, Jon Tigar, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a forum chosen by the ACLU, penned what is essentially an op-ed expressing his desire that Trump’s order on asylum be temporarily enjoined. His desire is just as binding as my desire to place an injunction on all liberals from running for office. He has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.

This is not a legitimate court ruling or even court case

President Trump issued a commonsense and quite modest order to direct all asylum claims to the points of entry rather than empowering the cartels to smuggle them in between the points of entry. Given that none of these people are legitimate asylees, he should have suspended all asylum claims at the border and required them to instead make claims in U.S. consulates in Mexico, the first safe third-party country, as designated by the U.N. Nonetheless, even this order was out of bounds, according to Tigar, who believes that asylum statute requires the president to afford everyone in the world, evidently even a belligerent mass migration, a chance to file an application.

Moreover, in what has become a favorite stalking horse of the judicial fascists, Tigar claimed that Trump didn’t properly promulgate this “regulation” under the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act. Yup, evidently, sensitive foreign affairs negotiations with Mexico and Central America and repelling an invasion are now classed with promulgating a new regulation on American farms. Will we subject a North Korean missile attack to the APA?

Let’s put aside the fact that asylum law was written clearly for individuals, not groups of tens and hundreds of thousands of people invading our country. It was written for people like Asia Bibi, the Christian who is being threatened with execution in Pakistan because of her faith. These people in the caravan are prima facie not eligible for asylum, and much like an invading army doesn’t need to be given papers and catch-and-release, these people don’t need to be let in.

Let’s also put aside the fact that asylum statute explicitly bars judicial review and private causes of action to sue for asylum status.

Let’s also put aside the fact that the ACLU cannot qualify as a legitimate party with standing to meet the standards of Article III cases and controversies. I kid you not, the ACLU actually said it has a personalized, cognizable harm because Trump’s policy causes the group “to divert significant resources to, among other things, understanding the new policy,” and “educating and advising its staff, clients, and prospective clients” on the order. I guess I can sue Pelosi’s House for any legislation I don’t like because it forces me to spread my resources thin in educating the public through my various platforms about the consequences.

Indeed, we have already established that this ruling is null and void from day one. But there is something more fundamental here.

The president has both delegated authority and inherent Article II powers over foreign commerce to prevent people from landing on our shores to begin with, and that is something that even Congress cannot take away. Thus, even if asylum statute in a vacuum forced the president to entertain any bogus claim, the president has inherent authority to exclude applicants from entering, and that power was reaffirmed by Congress in 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, which serves as a circuit breaker to all immigration categories, including asylum or any form of legal immigration. And for good reason.

As the Supreme Court said in Lichter v. United States (1948):

It is not necessary that Congress supply administrative officials with a specific formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program. . . . Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in the light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. “They derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear.”

There are no greater infinitely variable conditions than dealing with the emergency of the drug cartels and mass migration mixing together at our border. In fact, there are fewer groups in the world more brutal than the drug cartels. That alone would meet the definition of the president’s solemn requirement to repel an invasion under Art. IV Sec.4. There is no way anyone can read asylum law as negating the explicit and unambiguous powers to exclude aliens. (For more from the author of “No Judge Has Jurisdiction to Erase Our Border” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senator Makes a Suggestion for Ocasio-Cortez After She Defends Caravan

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), fresh off her underdog congressional win in New York, is quickly distancing herself from the Trump White House. While the president is sending troops down to the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent the 7,500-strong migrant caravan from entering the U.S., Ocasio-Cortez tweeted Sunday that we have nothing to fear from these individuals who are simply seeking asylum.

. . .

Graham followed up that suggestion with a list of reasons why he would not stand for the migrant caravan, including messages like this:

“Americans want an immigration policy which we control, not one where illegal immigrants control us. We are a nation of immigrants. We are also a kind and generous people. But Americans will not be played for fools.”

Graham reminded his followers that he’s worked to fix America’s immigration system for over a decade, so he may know a thing or two about what will or won’t work. He reached out to Democrats, many of whom he knows have hearts of compassion, entreating them to work with Republicans on first securing the border.

Still, Ocasio-Cortez and others have criticized border patrol agents for using aggressive tactics like pepper spray and tear gas to repel migrants from the U.S. border. Some of those rushing toward the border, however, hurled rocks at those agents, making the pepper spray “absolutely” the right decision, according to the Border Patrol Foundation. (Read more from “Senator Makes a Suggestion for Ocasio-Cortez After She Defends Caravan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Flashback: That Time the Border Patrol Deployed Pepper Spray to Repel Crowds During the Obama Administration

/0 Comments/in , /by

This minor history lesson (content warning) is only necessary because much of the mainstream media, led by scores of reactionary ‘blue checkmarks’ on social media, isn’t interested in covering stories with any depth or balance. They’re interested in fomenting anti-Trump emotionalism through dumbed-down narratives, so these images — which definitely seem intentionally choreographed — are positively irresistible. If the goal of those bum-rushing the border, or urging others to do so, was to generate a wave of “this is not who we are!” virtue signaling, then mission accomplished. Among the chief signalers are former members of the Obama administration, who have apparently forgotten (or, perhaps more likely, never knew, thanks to muted or nonexistent coverage) that the US Border Patrol used similar tactics on their watch, too. It’s almost as if numerous expressions of outrage are nakedly selective and partisan in nature. Here’s a contemporaneous report from the San Diego Union Tribune:

A group of about 100 people trying to illegally cross the border Sunday near the San Ysidro port of entry threw rocks and bottles at U.S. Border Patrol agents, who responded by using pepper spray and other means to force the crowd back into Mexico, federal officials said…The incident occurred about a quarter-mile west of the San Ysidro border crossing in the Tijuana River channel. No one was seriously injured, no shots were fired and no arrests were made, said Mary Beth Caston, a Border Patrol spokeswoman. The group first approached a lone agent stationed about 1/8 of a mile north of the border. They ignored his commands to stop, so he fired pepper balls to try to stop them and protect himself, Caston said. As the crowd kept advancing and throwing rocks and bottles, she said, more agents came to the scene and used other “intermediate use-of-force devices” to push back the group…

Caston said several agents were struck in the arms and legs with rocks, and that one agent was hit in the head with a filled water bottle. “While attacks on Border Patrol agents are not uncommon, the agents showed great restraint when faced with the dangers of this unusually large group, and fortunately no one was serious injured,” said Paul Beeson, San Diego sector chief for the Border Patrol…This type of rush on the border has not been seen since the late 1980s and early ’90s, when groups of border-crossers would run into the U.S. while agents tried to apprehend as many people as possible. The practice mostly disappeared after Operation Gatekeeper began in 1994 and brought with it tall fences, walls and more agents.

It seems that wasn’t an isolated incident, either. A few thoughts spring to mind: (1) Was this a humanitarian outrage back in 2013? If so, where was the accompanying self-flagellation? If not, why not? Perhaps those are rhetorical questions. (2) Based on the results of ‘Operation Gatekeeper,’ is sounds like physical barriers and increased enforcement actually make a tangible difference in outcomes. Fascinating. (3) In case you were curious, yes, reports suggest that some of the alleged asylum-seekers who were dispersed and repelled by tear gas and pepper spray over the weekend were throwing rocks and projectiles at US law enforcement officers:

US Border Patrol agents fired tear gas to repel rock-throwing migrants who tried to storm through a border fence separating California and Mexico on Sunday. Some of the migrants, part of the caravan that traveled to the border from Central America, threw “projectiles” at border agents as they approached the fence, officials said. Video appeared to show rocks being thrown. US Customs and Border Protection later tweeted that several agents were struck and tear gas was used “to dispel the group because of the risk to agents’ safety.”

(Read more from “Flashback: That Time the Border Patrol Deployed Pepper Spray to Repel Crowds During the Obama Administration” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

First Caravan-Related Violence Reported in U.S.

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Washington Times. The Border Patrol reported the first major instance of migrant caravan-related violence Saturday, saying a Honduran man threw rocks at agents to try to keep from being arrested Friday in Arizona.

The 31-year-old, whom authorities didn’t name, had climbed a tree to try to avoid capture, then lit the tree afire and began to throw rocks at the agents as well as a helicopter called in to help track him.

Neither the agents nor the helicopter were hit by the projectiles.

The man was eventually arrested, and agents said he told them he was part of the migrant caravan that had been in the news. They said he had previous arrests in the U.S. and had been deported back in June.

A local fire department had to be called to extinguish the fire. (Read more from “First Caravan-Related Violence Reported in U.S.” HERE)

_________________________________________________

‘It’s Going to Be a Mess’: Former ICE Supervisor Says ‘There Has to Be Something Done’ About Caravan

By Fox News. Former ICE supervisor Jason Piccolo said Sunday that “there has to be something done” as the migrant caravan heads toward the U.S. border.

The caravan was expected to march through the San Ysidro, California, point of entry Sunday afternoon.

“I think it’s going to be a mess,” Piccolo said Sunday on Fox & Friends. “That’s one of the busiest land ports we have in the world, and it’s also going to disrupt commercial and legitimate pedestrian traffic as well.”

Piccolo suggested a “port court,” where immigration judges and asylum officers would be present at points of entry.

He also said that possible cooperation between the Trump administration and the incoming Mexican government is “absolutely significant.” (Read more from “‘It’s Going to Be a Mess’: Former Ice Supervisor Says ‘There Has to Be Something Done’ About Caravan” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Woman Gives Ridiculous Reason for Driving on Train Tracks

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Fox News. . .Around 10 p.m. last Wednesday, the Duquesne Police Department responded to a call about “a vehicle on the railroad tracks” off State Route 837, the department wrote in a Facebook post.

Officers said a woman from Sewickley, roughly 15 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, had driven onto the tracks because “her GPS advised her to go this way.” (Read more from “Woman Gives Ridiculous Reason for Driving on Train Tracks” HERE)

_________________________________________________

‘The GPS Told Me to Do It’: Woman Guided by GPS Drives onto Railroad Tracks, Police Say

By USA Today. Pennsylvania police say a woman who was following GPS directions veered off a road and onto railroad tracks, leaving her car stranded and resulting in a careless driving ticket.

The City of Duquesne Police Department posted about the incident to social media Wednesday, beginning the post “The GPS told me to do it…” The post includes a photo showing a disabled white sedan sitting on railroad tracks that run parallel to a multilane road.

The woman was “100% sober and had no medical conditions affecting her decision-making,” police say. . .

In the wake of Hurricane Florence, North Carolina officials warned that GPS apps were advising drivers to take routes that were flooded. “It is not safe now to trust (the travel apps) with your life,” the North Carolina Department of Transportation tweeted in September.

And in 2016, a driver who was following GPS directions turned too quickly and crashed — leaving the car suspended vertically on wires attached to a utility pole. No one was injured in that incident. (Read more from “‘The GPS Told Me to Do It’: Woman Guided by GPS Drives onto Railroad Tracks, Police Say” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google Wants Sensors and Cameras to Watch, Analyze You

/0 Comments/in , /by

Patents recently issued to Google provide a window into their development activities. While it’s no guarantee of a future product, it is a sure indication of what’s of interest to them. What we’ve given up in privacy to Google, Facebook, and others thus far is minuscule compared to what is coming if these companies get their way.

These patents tell us that Google is developing smart-home products that are capable of eavesdropping on us throughout our home in order to learn more about us and better target us with advertising. It goes much further than the current Google Home speaker that’s promoted to answer our questions and provide useful information, and the Google-owned Nest thermostat that measures environmental conditions in our home. What the patents describe are sensors and cameras mounted in every room to follow us and analyze what we’re doing throughout our home.

They describe how the cameras can even recognize the image of a movie star’s image on a resident’s t-shirt, connect it to the person’s browsing history, and send the person an ad for a new movie the star is in.

One patent, No. 10,114,351, reads, “According to embodiments of this disclosure, a smart-home environment may be provided with smart-device environment policies that use smart-devices to monitor activities within a smart-device environment, report on these activities, and/or provide smart-device control based upon these activities.” . . .

When Amazon first introduced their Alexa speaker, and Google followed with their own speaker, security experts warned that these devices could be turned around to spy on us, and that’s exactly what appears to be happening. While there are many good uses for adding sensors for home automation, the danger comes when they are being monitored and used by outside companies with an insatiable desire to know everything about us. (Read more from “Google Wants Sensors and Cameras to Watch, Analyze You” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.