#targeting

[eretzyisrael]

[windvexer]

"When you work spells, how do you deliver them to their target? What techniques and methods do you employ to make sure they can get to where they need to go?"

What part of the spell would this be? The sealing it?

I'd wager somewhere beforehand, during the "programming" phase, or while you direct/teach/instruct the energy to do what it is you want it to do.

Banishing spell for rude customer:

>Charged red peppers >Charged candle >Some olive oil to stick the peppers to the candle (ventilation concerns already taken care of) >Used napkin cleared from customer's table (perhaps more likely, little notecard filled with every bit of identifying info you can manage) At some point you combine all of these things. Try starting your targeting at the very beginning. Ofc I don't know how you work, but like:

"These red peppers are to burn Craig, *reading from notecard* the customer who comes into [Sandwich Shop] every weekday at 12:45. *Visualizing his stupid smarmy face and feeling all your disgust*. This man I see in my mind's eye is who I target. This feeling of disgust is the road that leads to the man I banish.

"Just as I bind the peppers to the candle, so do I bind the spell to Craig. Just as Craig inevitably orders a turkey on rye, so does this spell inevitably chase him from the doorstep of [Sandwich Shop]."

(Or maybe you've got a really excellent taglock like the napkin. Well I'd still say do all of the above; I really focus on targeting, I think it works well! But then if you had the napkin, maybe:)

"As I rub this napkin on the oil-free candle I have yet to anoint with peppers, the spell sniffs his scent like a bloodhound; as his gross fucking mouth touched this napkin so will his mouth burn with the disgust I feel towards him, and his mouth and hands will burn when he thinks of [Sandwich Shop], and he will never return." Regardless of what you have for targeting, whether it be information or a nice taglock (you can be creative also - sweeping up their footprint dust, or sticking up some dust on a piece of tape; capturing their shadow in a mirror, printing off their linkedin profile, etc.), I find the following tricks to also help:

Place any taglock, including a notecard of information, nearby the spell as possible. Of course we couldn't put the napkin on the candle, so just place it underneath the candleholder, or incorporate it in any way possible (drawing a sigil on the napkin, etc).

Deploying the spell as close as possible to the target's physical location. In many situations it is reasonably impossible to leave a spell vessel near to someone. But I would not fuck with any witch who finds Craig's car in his work parking lot across the street and tapes a sigil underneath the tailpipe, or leaves a broken stick with a string tied around it near the entrance to his office.

(Imagine anon if we only did this work during the spell sealing. "Now that I've created a totally generic banishing spell, by the way, this all goes to Craig, that guy I hate. Here is when he comes into the shop:." It has far less zing, although it can be done.)

[thepersonalwords]

Follow the river to reach the sea; follow the sea to reach the ocean. And finally follow the ocean to reach the wisdom! As long as you target beyond of the beyond, you will reach the very beyond!

Mehmet Murat ildan

[itsmythang]

The New America is hard-core.

[kimmberlylocke]

We Need More Accountability

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The surveillance advertising to financial fraud pipeline

Monday (October 2), I'll be in Boise to host an event with VE Schwab. On October 7–8, I'm in Milan to keynote Wired Nextfest.

Being watched sucks. Of all the parenting mistakes I've made, none haunt me more than the times my daughter caught me watching her while she was learning to do something, discovered she was being observed in a vulnerable moment, and abandoned her attempt:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2014/may/09/cybersecurity-begins-with-integrity-not-surveillance

It's hard to be your authentic self while you're under surveillance. For that reason alone, the rise and rise of the surveillance industry – an unholy public-private partnership between cops, spooks, and ad-tech scum – is a plague on humanity and a scourge on the Earth:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/16/the-second-best-time-is-now/#the-point-of-a-system-is-what-it-does

But beyond the psychic damage surveillance metes out, there are immediate, concrete ways in which surveillance brings us to harm. Ad-tech follows us into abortion clinics and then sells the info to the cops back home in the forced birth states run by Handmaid's Tale LARPers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/29/no-i-in-uter-us/#egged-on

And even if you have the good fortune to live in a state whose motto isn't "There's no 'I" in uter-US," ad-tech also lets anti-abortion propagandists trick you into visiting fake "clinics" who defraud you into giving birth by running out the clock on terminating your pregnancy:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/15/paid-medical-disinformation/#crisis-pregnancy-centers

The commercial surveillance industry fuels SWATting, where sociopaths who don't like your internet opinions or are steamed because you beat them at Call of Duty trick the cops into thinking that there's an "active shooter" at your house, provoking the kind of American policing autoimmune reaction that can get you killed:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/us/swatting-sentence-casey-viner/index.html

There's just a lot of ways that compiling deep, nonconsensual, population-scale surveillance dossiers can bring safety and financial harm to the unwilling subjects of our experiment in digital spying. The wave of "business email compromises" (the infosec term for impersonating your boss to you and tricking you into cleaning out the company bank accounts)? They start with spear phishing, a phishing attack that uses personal information – bought from commercial sources or ganked from leaks – to craft a virtual Big Store con:

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/business-email-compromise

It's not just spear-phishers. There are plenty of financial predators who run petty grifts – stock swindles, identity theft, and other petty cons. These scams depend on commercial surveillance, both to target victims (e.g. buying Facebook ads targeting people struggling with medical debt and worried about losing their homes) and to run the con itself (by getting the information needed to pull of a successful identity theft).

In "Consumer Surveillance and Financial Fraud," a new National Bureau of Academic Research paper, a trio of business-school profs – Bo Bian (UBC), Michaela Pagel (WUSTL) and Huan Tang (Wharton) quantify the commercial surveillance industry's relationship to finance crimes:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31692

The authors take advantage of a time-series of ZIP-code-accurate fraud complaint data from the Consumer Finance Protection Board, supplemented by complaints from the FTC, along with Apple's rollout of App Tracking Transparency, a change to app-based tracking on Apple mobile devices that turned of third-party commercial surveillance unless users explicitly opted into being spied on. More than 96% of Apple users blocked spying:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-out-of-app-tracking-in-ios-14-5-analytics-find/

In other words, they were able to see, neighborhood by neighborhood, what happened to financial fraud when users were able to block commercial surveillance.

What happened is, fraud plunged. Deprived of the raw material for committing fraud, criminals were substantially hampered in their ability to steal from internet users.

While this is something that security professionals have understood for years, this study puts some empirical spine into the large corpus of qualitative accounts of the surveillance-to-fraud pipeline.

As the authors note in their conclusion, this analysis is timely. Google has just rolled out a new surveillance system, the deceptively named "Privacy Sandbox," that every Chrome user is being opted in to unless they find and untick three separate preference tickboxes. You should find and untick these boxes:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/how-turn-googles-privacy-sandbox-ad-tracking-and-why-you-should

Google has spun, lied and bullied Privacy Sandbox into existence; whenever this program draws enough fire, they rename it (it used to be called FLoC). But as the Apple example showed, no one wants to be spied on – that's why Google makes you find and untick three boxes to opt out of this new form of surveillance.

There is no consensual basis for mass commercial surveillance. The story that "people don't mind ads so long as they're relevant" is a lie. But even if it was true, it wouldn't be enough, because beyond the harms to being our authentic selves that come from the knowledge that we're being observed, surveillance data is a crucial ingredient for all kinds of crime, harassment, and deception.

We can't rely on companies to spy on us responsibly. Apple may have blocked third-party app spying, but they effect nonconsensual, continuous surveillance of every Apple mobile device user, and lie about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

That's why we should ban commercial surveillance. We should outlaw surveillance advertising. Period:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/ban-online-behavioral-advertising

Contrary to the claims of surveillance profiteers, this wouldn't reduce the income to ad-supported news and other media – it would increase their revenues, by letting them place ads without relying on the surveillance troves assembled by the Google/Meta ad-tech duopoly, who take the majority of ad-revenue:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

We're 30 years into the commercial surveillance pandemic and Congress still hasn't passed a federal privacy law with a private right of action. But other agencies aren't waiting for Congress. The FTC and DoJ Antitrust Divsision have proposed new merger guidelines that allow regulators to consider privacy harms when companies merge:

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0043-1569

Think here of how Google devoured Fitbit and claimed massive troves of extremely personal data, much of which was collected because employers required workers to wear biometric trackers to get the best deal on health care:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/04/google-fitbit-merger-would-cement-googles-data-empire

Companies can't be trusted to collect, retain or use our personal data wisely. The right "balance" here is to simply ban that collection, without an explicit opt-in. The way this should work is that companies can't collect private data unless users hunt down and untick three "don't spy on me" boxes. After all, that's the standard that Google has set.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/29/ban-surveillance-ads/#sucker-funnel

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[moneymasteryhubonline]

Bondi Beach Shooting: Everything We Know About Terror Attack Targeting Jewish Holiday Event

At least 12 people have been killed and dozens injured after two gunmen opened fire on a Jewish holiday event at Sydney’s Bondi Beach on Sunday. The shooting, which Australian authorities have declared a terror attack, targeted hundreds of people celebrating Hanukkah at the beach. One witness said people who were not part of the celebration were ushered aside by the shooters. At least 29 people…