Fingerprints can be stolen from photos

Did you know your fingerprints can be stolen from photos?

Meredyth Censullo

January 16, 2017

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Making a “duck face” in photos might not be the best look, but it’s not going to compromise your security. However, posing while flashing a peace sign, making the “V” for victory, or even giving a “thumbs up” might result in identity theft.

 

If your fingerprints are in focus, with strong lighting, hackers can recreate them. Then, those fingerprints can be used to log on to electronic devices, or access apps that are protected with fingerprint technology, such as banking websites.

Researchers at The National Institute of Informatics in Japan are studying the problem, and say improving smartphone technology is to blame. The researchers used a 20.4-mega pixel camera for a recent experiment. After taking a picture of a thumb, the researchers created the digit’s data. They found that fingerprint data was obtainable at a distance of three meters, or just under 10 feet away.

The National Institute of Informatics is developing a special film that can be attached to fingers, and will protect fingerprint data in photos. However, it may take another two years before the technology is available.

For now, avoiding flashing your fingertips is your best option.

http://wfla.com/2017/01/16/did-you-know-your-fingerprints-can-be-stolen-from-photos/

 

How negative is the media coverage?

Harvard study examines media coverage of Trump — and the results will blow you away          

 

A new study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy examines the media's coverage of the Trump administration and finds the coverage has been overwhelmingly negative. (Did they consult with SERCO - THE provider of 'news coverage' for all the controlled media? THAT would have answered the questions IF SERCO was to be honest about what they do.)

It doesn’t take a team of experts at Harvard University to reveal what you already know: Most of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets do not support President Donald Trump. But just how negative is the media coverage?  (Just how negative do those paying for the services of SERCO want it to be?)

 

That’s the question a new study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy attempts to answer, and the results are truly remarkable. ??!!

 

The study analyzed print news reports about Trump during his first 100 days in office appearing in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. It also examined the newscasts produced by CBS, CNN, Fox News, NBC, the Financial Times, BBC and Germany’s ARD.

 

According to Harvard professor Thomas Patterson, “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity. Of news reports with a clear tone, negative reports outpaced positive ones by 80 percent to 20 percent. Trump’s coverage was unsparing. In no week did the coverage drop below 70 percent negative and it reached 90 percent negative at its peak.”

 

By comparison, Bill Clinton’s news coverage during his first 100 days was 60 percent negative, George W. Bush’s was 57 percent negative and Obama’s coverage was nearly three times more positive than Trump. According to Patterson, 59 percent of Obama’s coverage was positive in his first 100 days, while only 20 percent of Trump’s coverage was positive.

Among the news outlets examined, not one provided more positive coverage than negative coverage. Unsurprisingly, Fox News was the closest; 52 percent of its coverage of Trump was negative, and 48 percent was positive, suggesting the network’s “fair and balanced” slogan may be more accurate than is often alleged.

 

Ninety percent or more of the coverage at CNN, NBC and CBS was determined to be negative. The coverage by the New York Times and Washington Post was 80 percent negative or higher. Even the Wall Street Journal, which is considered to lean conservative, was determined to provide coverage of Trump that was 70 percent negative.

 

One unexpected finding from the study is that BBC’s coverage was 74 percent negative, lower than many of the top American news outlets.

 

Patterson wrote in the study Trump’s “best” week came when he ordered a cruise-missile strike on a Syrian airbase in retaliation against that government’s use of nerve gas.

 

“The best period for Trump was week 12 of his presidency, when he ordered a cruise missile strike on a Syrian airbase in retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of nerve gas on civilians. That week, his coverage divided 70 percent negative to 30 percent positive.” 
 

The study’s introduction indicates, “The newspaper analysis covers all sections except sports, obituaries, and letters to the editor. Op-eds and editorials are included, but letters from the public are not. For television, the analysis covers the full daily content of each network’s major newscast. Network talk shows are not included.”

(After reading the above and the explanation of how the percentages were calculated, and considering that SERCO is the hired NEGATIVE script writer and the SOLE SOURCE for ALL the 'news' media, it is not difficult to understand HOW all the NEGATIVE reports surface about Trump, not only since President Trump took office but BEFORE during the campaigning. The enemy is furious that Trump won, that Trump continues to be successful in undoing much of the damage they accomplished in the Bush, Clinton and Obama regimes, and that they are losing control. They are hell bent on doing all possible to literally destroy this man who has accomplished more in his efforts to undo their damage then they are even able to continue doing.  Too many independent conservative polls continue to show that as many as  90% of Americans polled fully support President Trump, demonstrating that the media is wholly owned and controlled by this nation's enemies and SERCO, and that the media that is NOT a part of the SERCO system has far differing results to publish.  This nation is sorely divided and at war with itself.)  

 

Justin Haskins 

May 20 2017
(H/T: Fox News Insider)

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/05/20/harvard-study-examines-media-coverage-of-trump-and-the-results-will-blow-you-away/

 

SAN DIEGO SAYS 'NO!' TO SHARIA LAW

 

SAN DIEGO FIGHTS BACK:

SAYS WE WILL NOT TOLERATE

SHARIA LAW IN OUR SCHOOLS

 



Saudis roll out the red carpet treatment for President Trump

Saudi Arabia: The Difference Between Trump and Obama – Red Carpet Welcome

 

Even Saudi camel jockeys can tell the difference between President Trump, a real leader commanding respect, and a paid pink pantywaist a*s kisser, Obama

 

While the idiot leftists, 'politicians' and traitors in both parties of Congress are bad mouthing and threatening to 'impeach,' world leaders recognize and respect full well the qualities of the great American leader President Trump

 

 

 

May 20, 2017

Kristie McDonald

 

 

President Trump got a royal, red-carpet welcome to Saudi Arabia on Saturday, where he was greeted at the airport by King Salman.

 



 

Trump shook hands with the Saudi king—a stark contrast to former President Obama, who bowed to Salman in 2009.

 

Saudi Arabia is the first stop on Trump’s whirlwind nine-day foreign tour, which will include stops in Israel, the Vatican, Belgium and the G7 summit in Italy.

Bizpac Review reports,

The president literally got the red-carpet treatment at the Riyadh airport, where the tarmac was lined with plush red carpets despite the 107degree heat.

 

Follow

Donald J. Trump

✔ @realDonaldTrump

Great to be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Looking forward to the afternoon and evening ahead. #POTUSAbroad

4:44 AM - 20 May 2017    

Melania and Ivanka Trump accompanied the president, and made a statement by not covering their hair—which is almost unheard of in oppressive Saudi Arabia, where women must cover their heads in a hijab or niqab.

Hillary Clinton wore a headscarf during her visits to Saudi Arabia as secretary of state, where she bowed to a Saudi prince.

 

Spot the difference!!!

 

 

 



 

At long last Americans can be proud of our Presidential couple.

 

http://eheadlines.com/saudi-arabia-the-difference-between-trump-and-obama-red-carpet-welcome-video/

 

 

If Wannacry cyber attack didn’t make you wannacry, the next one will!

http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wannacry-cyber-attack-warware/

The Wannacry malware that hit like a global mega-bomb, showed everyone how vulnerable we are to a global cyber attack. Billed as “one of the largest global ransomware attacks the cyber community has ever seen,” the infection started in London and then emerged almost instantly in Seattle, New York, and Tokyo. Within ten minutes, the coordinated attack became epidemic throughout the world, covering the better part of every continent but Antarctica. By the end of one day, the malware had infected over 200,000 computers in 150 nations, encrypting all their data and locking the users out.

While the attackers demanded a ransom in order to free hostage computers, the small number of companies that paid the ransom required for unlocking the encryption did not get their data back, raising a question of whether the primary goal was really money or mayhem. (If primary goal was making a lot of quick money, it would make more sense to quickly release data so that more companies would be inclined to pay the ransom, seeing that payment solved the problem.)

This was a cyber attack equal in scale to something Dr. Evil would create or some Bond villain would use to collect ransom from the entire world … or to control the world. This time, it didn’t win, but there are some interesting reasons why as you did deeper….

...The fact that ransom seems to have played a very small roll in a very large “ransomware” attack begs the question as to whether this was a government operation masquerading as a ransom attack...

—David Haggith