"It sounds to me like you've already decided that cell phones are dangerous... "
Oh indeed I have - at least more dangerous than the manufacturers are admitting.
I cannot say how dangerous they are because the science needed to make that judgement has been absent from this determination.
And that is the point.
However, my reasoning is a tad simpler than yours.
The fact that science has been utterly unable to determine the safety or harm of cells phones after nearly 40 years of massive use, tells me that something is doing its damnedest to insure that such proof is never allowed to surface.
To be able to prevent science from ascertaining harm or safety takes money and lots of it - I offer the tobacco industry as an example of this process.
The only type of proof that would warrant such an effort would be the proof of harm since the proof of safety would aid commercial sales tremendously and any such proof backed by irrefutable science would have been plastered upon every flat surface in every city on earth by the industry.
The lack of such "proof of safety" tells me only that it is difficult to disseminate such proof without actual science to back it up effectively and thus there must be no actual science available for this proof, which of course gives rise to what we see today - the back and forth of claims that are unsubstantiated by science, or that deny the science when offered.
In your scenario, I would first have to discover or invent a class of very wealthy and powerful people who are attempting to harm the wireless industry.
I find this task quite difficult - in fact impossible so far - although I'm more than willing to entertain any extremely wealthy and highly placed "groups" you might offer as possible sources of such anti-cell campaigns.
With every revelation made by the documents Snowden rescued from the NSA, his popularity grows, and the public's determination to see the criminals in office and their minions pay for their crimes grows with it.
Desperation leads to desperate measures.
I mean, its not like the Intelligence Community actually considers "intelligence" to be a prerequisite for employees and directors.
Cunning, a silver tongue, and a willing to do whatever it takes to get rich, are traits that are far more revered by the Intelligence Community than actual intelligence.
"and never even seem to acknowledge the dangers of having the ability to simply delete factual history..."
Actually, factual history is considered to be one of the most dangerous of all written works, to those families who have actually caused the real events that make up the unrecorded history of humanity.
Consider if you will for a moment, if history were written by the losers and victims of the events that make history.
How would criminal families make ends meet if the populations of the world had a written record of the real criminal operations and real evil deeds of their corrupt leaders throughout history, and could scan through a concise data base of their "tried and true" methods for exploiting populations for fun and profit, while making that same population think they were the good guys through propaganda and social engineering.
Real History, composed of real events, could quite easily lead to a real Global Popular Utopia.
Methinks what we are seeing here is a snippet of the process of stitching together myths and falsehoods to protect the guilty, that we know fondly as "recording history".
It matters not that the story was bullshit, or whether anyone now living believes any of it. What matters is that it, and all the others like it, get published.
For example, those of you who have the intestinal fortitude to watch Fox News, will very likely see this report quoted repeatedly over the next few weeks or months, no matter how many times the entire article is proven to be 100% pure BS.
In fact, this is apparently the purpose of Fox News.
This part of the process creates the background mythology - the popular awareness that this was once reported as true.
History - the past according to the winners - is the accumulated bits and pieces of Official BS that get published like this, specifically so that those pieces can be later gathered together as a whole, and taught to your children's children, as the truth about the past, and in turn, maintains the false family integrity of the myriad criminals who participated in the real events that are not recorded in history.
In this way, those criminal families responsible for the failure of a civilization, can begin again with a fresh slate and their "good name" intact, after the civilization they have corrupted fails and a new one begins - with the same "good" families at the helm once again.
"Amazon never participated in the NSA’s PRISM program."
Hmmmmmm... when a US company is legally forced to provide information to a US government agency that is running a semi-legal but White-House-approved surveillance and data mining program, can it actually be truthfully claimed that the company has "participated" in that program, if it simply adheres to the law and does what the courts order, such as hand over user information??
It sounds to me like Amazon's lawyers have chosen their words very carefully and may indeed be telling only half the story here, through simple omission.
I'd be far more interested in a statement of whether or not they actually turned over information to NSA's PRISM agents due to court orders, or failed legal challenges, or for any other reason.
Their lack of active "participation" in the PRISM program is not actually pertinent to whether or not they capitulated under duress and gave the NSA what they wanted.
A victim of torture can often turn over information to his/her tormentors (regardless of whether or not the information is actually valid), but certainly it cannot be truthfully claimed that the victim is "participating" in the torture.
"The circus repeats every year, the only change is what illegal action "X" happens to be that year."
And that's only because as soon as they leave the courtroom, legislators amend the laws to make doing "X" perfectly legal, but only for that agency and only as long as the agency fills out form #7y637663jj9 in triplicate and files it with the Office of Secret File Management (OSFM), within 360 days of doing "X".
However, its still illegal for anyone else to do "X".
Having been hacked and blackmailed by the US spy agencies for years, they have finally turned the tables and joined The Five Eyes Blackmail Game, by learning how to blackmail the Five Eyes' member nation's spies themselves.
I guess the leaders of the Five Eyes thought that they could secretly survey and blackmail the world and the world would just obey them and bend over, and not try and protect itself from them. They didn't even bother to secure their own data because they think the rest of the world is composed of lesser beings.
What a bunch of self-important, arrogant, morons.
The leaders of the Five Eyes have opened a can of worms they are definitely not going to like, as they have forced the world to fight back against the monster - to fight fire with fire and learn how to blackmail the blackmailers.
Coming soon: Public Encryption Security Training Control
"At least we had 9/11 to rationalize our self-destruction of the Constitution. What's their excuse?"
Orders from Britain - the head of the Five Eyes - to help normalize the coming martial law environment of the USA and stem the flow of Americans seeking asylum in Canada.
Canada is merely the "Tech Resource and Training" wing of Five Eyes, and like New Zealand (the Dirty Tricks and Wetwork wing), has to do whatever its told to do, regardless of the cost to the people of that nation.
Gotta stick to the Plan Stan. Can't kill the Internet without first establishing North American Martial Law ye know.
You do understand what the little " /s " at the bottom of the post stands for, right?
/s = Sarcasm off.
Its phony hyper-text without the pointy brackets.
I suppose I could have put a single "s" at the start of the message, but I'm certain that would have just been mistaken for a typo.
I was making a "tongue-in-cheek" comment about how "science" has still not determined the safety of cell phones after all these decades, by stating that cell phones were a "new fangled device" and that science took a quarter of a century to figure anything out.
s Sorry for the confusion, but I did try to make it obvious. /s ---
After all, Canada has been wracked with literally hundreds of suicide bombers and dozens of ISIS assaults and beheadings, on an almost daily basis for decades now.
The country is a smoking ruin and the population devastated, wandering aimlessly through the debris of their once symmetrically perfect igloo cities.
No longer does one hear the old familiar refrain of "Ey! Howdy Ey!", among the homeless, war-torn remnants of that once happy land.
Its about time the forces of Goodness and Light had some laws with teeth to ferret out these huge nests of evil murdering muzlums, hiding under the now smoke-stained and burnt beds of the FUD frightened Canadian People.
I'm assuming that what you're saying is that, even the apparently "Real Science" studies that are paid for by government from taxpayer dollars, are actually just more of the same friends-of-commerce, paid-for pseudo-science that cell phone manufacturers themselves create, and that the whole "correct analysis methodology" process for determining safety of these devices is rigged right from the start to insure that any independent studies can be dismissed out of hand for not following the official rules.
...like they do for the tobacco, oil, alcohol, pharma, and pesticide, etc., industries...
Or, in simpler words, science would have no trouble determining the true safety/danger of cell phones, if someone would, some day, simply utilize real science methods to study them.
It is the journey of a point on a wheel, returning to its origin.
Revolution simply trades one gang of criminals masquerading as statesmen for another gang of criminals masquerading as statesmen.
With Revolution, nothing actually changes except the names of the men and women using your lives as fodder for their own personal aggrandizement.
Evolution is necessary.
Compose governments of people earning less than 50,000 per annum, who are given a publically accessible expense account and an appropriate living space for the duration of their term, but are paid at the end of their term according to their accomplishments while in office, and you have the beginning of real change.
Of course this is impossible.
Politicians and their Corporate owners would never allow it and the population has no voice in the matter. :)
It is somewhat difficult to understand precisely why, after 30 years of usage, there is still nothing but contradictory science/claims pertaining to the safety of these devices.
Is science simply incapable of determining the facts because the facts are so ephemeral and or difficult to ascertain with any degree of certainty?
Or is this due entirely to the modern habit of corporate concerns flooding the system with paid-for pseudo science designed specifically to help sell a product, by pretending to show product safety?
I would think that 30 years was sufficient time to determine the absolute scientifically defined truth about cell phones, but this is certainly not the case.
So, is science incapable of determining the dangers of cell phones because the question is too complex to answer (or because nobody is funding such real research), or is it simply that real science is overwhelmed by the number of pseudo-studies disseminated and designed by commercial interests to help sell an unsafe but super-popular product?