Account Opening Form For Office Use: Customer Identifier 1: Fill & Download for Free

#1: You’ll never convince anyone to adopt your views by demeaning and insulting them(Quick thing of note before you comment below. Yes I know conservatives do some of these things but this is from conservatives to liberals so I am not going to rag on the Republican party here)This is Brooke SmithLoving mother of 3. She said something on social media about how she enjoys staying home with her kids and taking care of her husband. She said she was proud to do this and loves her life. She said“If half of these frickin’ feminists knew half of the things I did for my husband they’d lose their mind.”This was a slight dig at feminists from an unknown person with no real platform. Many of the most prevalent young radical feminists do openly look down on housewives and see them as willing slaves rather than good mothers. However, this is not a serious dig- it's just a small note about how feminists see housewives.Funny enough Brooke was right because feminist anchors at the Australian version of the Today Show picked up on what she said. They proceeded to mock, belittle, and insult this woman on live TV. They humiliated this person on live TV with no regard for her own feeling or her own choices. What they did was also EXTREMELY anti-feminism. Feminism is not stick used to beat women into choosing a path that you want, feminism is about allowing women to chose their own path in life.My mom was a stay-at-home mom and I am thankful for it. My mother and I are super close and I grew up with very supportive parents. Having my mom around when I needed her was of great comfort to me and I have a childhood filled with great memories because my mother wasn’t off at work- she was at home with me. Not everyone has this luxury but should we demean a mother for wanting to stay home and raise her children rather than work?EDIT/NOTE: This came up a lot in comments. People say “well she said frickin feminists so they responded, it's only fair” in every other comment. Let’s be clear here. A private citizen NOBODY, not a celebrity or influencer- a regular average person said “fricken feminists” on her social media and you think a FAIR response is to publically shame and belittle this woman? Are you kidding me? If you said, “oh these darn conservatives” on social media and Fox News proceeded to belittle and shame you for your life choices in front of millions of people- drawing thousands of them to harass you and send you death threats- that would be fair right? IN WHAT WORLD is someone saying frickin feminists to 40 friends on social media equivalent to being shamed against your will on national TV in front of millions? I see so many times that we should not shame women- but if that women says “fricken feminists” go at her on live TV? What? Please just reflect on your opinion here and realize women are going to choose their own paths and views and you either support them in their freedom to choose or you don’t- you cannot have it both ways. What happened to Brooke was unacceptable by every standard. Also- she said what she said because she was already being harassed by feminists regularly on social media despite the fact she never picked a fight with them or sought them out- they found her.Now the goal was pretty clear here- humiliate women that chose a different path than feminists want them to take. This is a consistent tactic. Major liberal media outlets like Trevor Noah and John Oliver browbeat and belittle conservatives without end while people on social media do the same.THIS DOESN’T WORK EVER. The only result of this is that conservatives dig in deeper and resent you. Nobody is going to be humiliated or insulted into changing their minds about something.Every time I write something somewhat pro-conservative I get many mean nasty comments that are just beyond rude. Like that is going to make me change my mind suddenly? Like I am going to go “Oh I guess I am a racist fascist bigot who hates women and I should kill myself- I’m gonna vote for Biden this election now”.Of all the ways you can convince someone to adopt your views this is the WORST possible way. Your movement looks hostile and nasty and you make a logical discussion personal.#2: Conservatives are not bigotsAt first, this was “conservatives are not racist” but after 100 comments I realize maybe I was too specific. So now it's conservatives aren’t bigots. Some conservatives are certainly bigots but not all of them, not even most of them. It’s a minority of the party inhabiting the fringes of the spectrum.This is always met with resistance because it is far easier to dismiss conservatives and ignore the very valid reasons behind their ideology if you can just cast them as a pack of bigots. Therefore, people always argue this. Usually just saying they know a racist conservative, therefore, they are all racist.But here are some points to considerA large percentage of Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian Americans identify as conservative. Do they hate themselves? Are they really stupid? Or maybe are you wrong about all conservatives being racistRight now Joe Biden has pledged to run a female as his VP, maybe a woman of color. Funny enough though the sexist Republican party did this already, back in 2008 with Sarah Palin- making Palin the first female to run for VP or President in a major party since 1984. Funny enough she was absolutely demolished by Democrats who mocked her without mercy. Then in 2016 when Republicans mocked Clinton or pointed out her flaws- its sexist. Yet when they did it 2 elections ago it was fine. Makes you wonder what the priorities really are.Republicans play to their voters. They say and do things that their voters want to be said and done. Yet none of them are outwardly racist at all- and in fact, they denounce racism whenever it comes up. If conservatives were racist why do they keep electing people who do not support racism?Being anti-illegal immigration is not the same as being anti-immigration. Every President in the last 3 decades has been against illegal-immigration including Clinton and Obama. Hillary Clinton was anti-illegal immigration for nearly her entire career. Yes, Trump made it a major position for his campaign but it's not like nobody was talking about it beforehand.The Republican party was an anti-gay marriage party for a long time. I think this is a stain that many Republicans detest. There is no getting around this one and it’s a pretty clear indication a large part of the Republican party is bigoted. But- the Republican party is not alone here. The last Democratic president Barrak Obama was anti-gay marriage when he ran for office in 2008. He shifted his stance after being elected and fought to expand the rights of LGBTQ people and I’ll give him credit there. As Obama adopted this more correct stance so did many Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump did not run on an anti-LGBTQ platform at all. He certainly didn’t carry the torch for LGBTQ people but neither did he try to overturn Obama-era acts that made gay marriage legal. The entire party has pretty much abandoned being anti-LGBTQ position minus some older hold outs. Young Republicans are in favor of LGBTQ rights 74% of the time and voters really don’t care about these issues anymore on the Republican sideBeing pro-life is also often pointed too as being proof that the Republican party is sexist against women. Many Republicans are pro-life to be sure though I myself am pro-choice being a libertarian and all. However, this is often framed as Republicans wanting to control women's bodies. Knowing many conservatives I don’t think the desire is for them to control women- that’s not what motivates the movement. What DOES motivate the movement is the concept that an abortion kills a baby. To these activists abortions prevent a child from being born and living their life- they really do see it as killing children which is why it was so fiercely opposed.#3: We all agree on most thingsIn the end, Democrats and Republicans BOTH wantA better future for everyoneMore people to have more moneyPeople to be happyPeople to be safeFewer crimesPeople to be healthierPeople to have freedom of choice and expressionPeople to be treated fairlyLess corrupt governmentA better functioning economyA better education systemLess warWe all have the same goals. Libertarians, conservatives, and liberals all want the same things, we just disagree about how to get there.This toxic idea that Democrats and Republicans are opposites has gone on too long.#4: You need ConservativesRepublicans and Democrats actually have personality characteristics. You can figure out someone's personality and guess what party they belong too with a high degree of accuracy.Republicans are highly organized, individualistic, driven, and prioritize stability. They are great at building running companies and making complex institutions work. Look at this below and you’ll see what I meanDr. Jordan Peterson also has a great series of talks about this same topic.The truth is that we all need each other. We need both sides of the coin, conservatives, and liberals.Have you ever considered that Republicans and Democrats may both be correct? Maybe there are times where Republican values and Republican economic policy is better and times where more reform-minded liberal policy is better. Perhaps both ideologies are completely valid if applied at the right time and in the right way.#5: Understand the conservative platform moreI think many liberals do not fully understand what it is that drives conservatives. It creates a barrier to empathizing and connecting with conservative voters. By and large this is what conservatives want to seeSmall government. Conservatives are individualists at heart. They want their freedoms protected (like the second amendment) and they want to be left alone to do as they wish. A large overly powerful government is among their greatest fears and they feel the government is ineffective at best and corrupt at worst.Fewer taxes. Conservatives feel that they pay way to much in taxes. Most people lose something like 20% of their income to taxes not including sales tax, property tax, and so on. They want to keep more of their money and feel like allowing Americans to keep more of their money would, in turn, allow the economy to prosper further as more cash is pumped into the economyUnderstand that when taxes are raised it is rarely done like we want. Democrats raise taxes traditionally (though not always) and when they do they always claim to be taxing the rich. Reality is never so simple though. The rich, if taxed enough, will bail. For the meantime, though they are all rich enough to hide their money in offshore accounts or through some other loophole. The bill is almost always picked up by middle-class Americans who cannot afford to hide their money but have enough to take. To these Americans this is theft. The middle class is not a group of people with huge inheritances. They are working professionals, doctors, small business owners, and hard workers who have spent years or decades building up their income to support their families.Conservative values. To many conservatives, the new wave of violence in society is due to a breakdown in social norms and customs. This conservative ideology often comes in the form of religious values but it is deeper than that. Conservatives are traditionalists that want to maintain what they see as their culture. They value order and stability more than change or reform.In the end it comes down to this. Remember that Republicans are no different from you. They aren’t your enemies or opponents- they are regular people like you. They love their families, they support their communities, they donate to charity, and they want the world to be a better place.They may have a different philosophy than you but that does not make them evil or wrong. They have reasons to believe what they believe and a rationale behind their views.This leads to my last point I am adding on as a side note. #6: We don’t have to agree about everything.I am not a conservative. In temperament, I consider myself something of a traditionalist but generally speaking I am more libertarian than Republican. I agree with Democrats on issues and I agree with Republicans on issues. This is the case with most people. If we all just took a second to talk to one another we would find that there is common ground.My wife and I have a similar vision of the future- have some kids, start a family, go travel. We disagree about the best path to getting there but we want the same thing. We both have to work to compromise, work with each other, take time to understand why each of us thinks the way we do and work to make both of us as happy as we can be.Like my wife and I, Republicans and Democrats are part of the same family. We are not enemies- we are fellow Americans, neighbors, community members, bosses, and brothers/sisters. We can live in a world where we all empathize and understand each other. We may never agree on the best path forward but we can all work together to make America a better place. If all we care about is humiliating our rivals than maybe we don’t deserve a better America- maybe we deserve this conflict and tension.Our parents and grandparents didn’t live in a world consumed with political conflict and tension, we don’t have to either. We chose how we treat each other and we can choose to be better.

First, a bit of context for those unaware of the story in question.Bloomberg published a barn-burner of a piece this morning, alleging a Chinese conspiracy to insert “stealth doorways” (in the form of rogue microchips) onto hardware produced by Super Micro, “one of the world’s biggest suppliers of server motherboards”.These compromised motherboards were allegedly purchased for use on highly sensitive installations, including “[DoD] data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships”.It’s alleged that affected hardware was discovered by Amazon and Apple (separately) in mid-2015, which accelerated/focused a “top-secret probe, which remains open more than three years later”.While neither company were accused of any wrongdoing, it’s implied by context that their security measures were lax enough for infected hardware to have been put into production via an AWS data center in Beijing and 7,000 of Apple’s Siri-supporting servers.Within a few hours of this story going live, Amazon, Apple, and Super Micro all emailed in statements to Bloomberg, protesting more or less all the major points at issue.In the face of those objections, Bloomberg reiterated that they had 17 sources, including “six current and former national security officials”, “two people inside AWS, and “three Apple insiders”.Why This MattersOne of two things is true: either (1) Bloomberg was misled and has ultimately published BS likely to harm Apple and Amazon, or (2) said companies aren’t telling the full truth in response, and this really is a major, major story.To be clear, these were not generic “we disagree with elements of the reporting and look forward to an opportunity to clarify our side” responses. These were fiery denials, outlined in significant detail.To quote from Apple’s:Over the course of the past year, Bloomberg has contacted us multiple times with claims, sometimes vague and sometimes elaborate, of an alleged security incident at Apple. Each time, we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. We have repeatedly and consistently offered factual responses, on the record, refuting virtually every aspect of Bloomberg’s story relating to Apple. […]In response to Bloomberg’s latest version of the narrative, we present the following facts: Siri and Topsy never shared servers; Siri has never been deployed on servers sold to us by Super Micro; and Topsy data was limited to approximately 2,000 Super Micro servers, not 7,000. None of those servers has ever been found to hold malicious chips.At first blush, I thought it plausible that if Apple and Amazon did indeed volunteer to cooperate with investigations that may still be ongoing, that they might now be subject to some form of gag order. If so, how could we tell? While I don’t know of any conclusive form of proof either way, I wondered whether this response was consistent with past denials when the presumed cause of said denials was some form of government prohibition.An Imperfect ParallelThe closest case I could think of that involved similar actors was PRISM, the NSA-led surveillance program whose existence was leaked to the public via the Edward Snowden disclosures of 2013.While PRISM involved Apple, the briefing notes that formed the backbone of the Snowden leak suggested that “98 percent of PRISM production [was] based on [data from] Yahoo, Google and Microsoft” (i.e., the major email providers back in 2013). As such, I thought it useful to consider the statements issued by those companies at the time, particularly in light of what we know about PRISM now.GoogleGoogle cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.MicrosoftWe provide customer data only when we receive a legally binding order or subpoena to do so, and never on a voluntary basis. In addition we only ever comply with orders for requests about specific accounts or identifiers. If the government has a broader voluntary national security program to gather customer data we don’t participate in it.YahooYahoo takes users' privacy very seriously. We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network.As to how honest those statements were, this is where we get outside my paygrade. I’ll outline the little that I understand, while opening the door to those closer to the topic to chime in.This roundup from various security experts suggested that none of those statements were quite lies, but that all were carefully worded to sidestep realities that none were at liberty to disclose.Example 1 - “In accordance with the law” is fairly meaningless, as the Protect America Act of 2007 and the FISA Amendments Acts of 2008 gave legal cover for loads of data aggregation/inspection schemes.Example 2 - “Direct access” was very likely never provided, in the strict sense of unfettered access to raw production data. But that didn’t rule out NSA access to a dedicated server that hosted cloned data for all users that the government deemed covered by various FISA warrants.(A 196-page report was released by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board in 2014. The relevant bits about how PRISM data was collected begin on document page 32. To the degree that I follow the language, the NSA provided a “selector” like an email address, and then partners like Google would clone any data related to said address onto an NSA-accessible server. But that’s just my cursory reading, so corrections/clarifications are welcome.)The (Partial) VerdictI’ve mostly written this answer as an opening volley to give context to the question, thus lessening the explanatory burden for others who might have more insight. It doesn’t seem that any of the corporate statements re: PRISM involved the level of detail present in the rebuttals offered today by Apple and Amazon. While none of this proves or disproves anything in itself, I’m left wondering why said companies would be so aggressive/specific in their denials if their only motivation was providing cover for some ongoing investigation.This leaves a few open questions for those who care to dig deeper:Are there closer analogues than the PRISM case? Especially ones in which tech companies (or utilities like Verizon/AT&T) went to similar lengths in their rebuttals?Has Bloomberg ever gotten a story this wrong before (relative to what would be the case if Apple and Amazon are telling the truth)?If Bloomberg is right, did/does the US government have some duty of care to inform affected customers? Say a business had IP stolen because of said program, would they be eligible to sue the government or to apply for some form of financial relief?If Bloomberg is wrong, does this give cause to the named parties to sue?(To be clear, these are genuine questions. I really don’t know. I look forward to answers from others who can shed more light.)EDIT:Wanted to link the longer rebuttals by Amazon (here) and Apple (here).A few comments about said statements:Apple went so far as saying “we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations”.While Apple’s statement was issued by their Director of Comms, Amazon’s was from their Chief Information Security Officer (and was subsequently retweeted by their CTO, twice).Some are debating whether it’s possible that the C-suites at both companies are simply out-of-loop by legal necessity (with the government only dealing with a select handful who have TS/SCI clearances). Whether that’s at all likely is beyond me.EDIT 2:More denials have come in with the new week.The UK’s National Cyber Security Center (part of the GCHQ): “We are aware of the media reports but at this stage have no reason to doubt the detailed assessments made by AWS and Apple.”The US’s Department of Homeland Security: “Like our partners in the UK, […] at this time we have no reason to doubt the statements from the companies named in the story.”Apple went so far as sending a letter to three US congressional committees, signed by their VP of Information Security. They haven’t conceded an inch.Bottom line: either this is a 1950s-style national security cover-up deemed so important that Apple has been given carte blanche to lie, blatantly and in detail, to whomever they want — or Bloomberg got played, hard.

Commercial banks, in an attempt to appear more accessible to customers, have increasingly moved away from presenting a "hard-target" exterior. Gone, for example, are the imposing stand-alone bank buildings, the security guards and "bandit-trap" entry doors - as well as, in many instances, the perplex-glass teller windows.So how do today's Banks keep criminals at bay? Simple - they rely increasingly on the latest, high-tech forms of security to combat bank crime.Here is what you need to know -1) Banks, taking a cue from the gaming industry, have invested heavily in sophisticated video surveillance and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras with 360-degree lenses, enabling the financial institutions to capture, in stunning image-quality, the comings and goings of their bank customers. Not only does it gives Bank officials a "bird's-eye" view of their operation at all times, the video coverage can be viewed in real time within the Bank premises or remotely via laptop or smartphone.In addition, these same Banks are turning, more and more, to advanced video analytics: motion detection and behavioral recognition for spotting suspicious activity, facial recognition for identifying and tracking "persons of interest", and night-vision lenses and license plate recognition for dusk-to-dawn and outside perimeter coverage. These "smart" surveillance systems are fully programmable and fitted with anti-tampering devices and alarm systems with instant link-ups to outside private security firms or law enforcement.2) Bank teller stations are specially outfitted with custom-designed twin-drawers intended to foil "counter-jumpers". The top drawer - known as the "primary" - is the drawer bank tellers draw from during routine transactions; and is the one they empty in the event of a "stick-up". The drawer normally holds about $3,500 USD maximum - "small change" to the bank.The secondary drawer sits below the primary drawer, hidden from plain view, and normally requires two-key access. Much deeper than the primary, the secondary drawer contains larger denominations of currency for commercial transactions and account closings, typically more than five times as much money as the primary drawer.3) Banks strategically position thin, paper-clipped bundles of tens and twenties at the bottom of each slot in the primary and secondary drawers. Referred to in the trade as "bait money", the denomination, series years and serial numbers of the bank notes are carefully recorded and kept on file by the Bank. This to establish an evidentiary "paper trail" linking a robbery suspect and the cash in his pocket to the crime scene.4) Some of the bait bills contain a "tracer" in the form of a thick magnet strip down the side of the note. Once the tracer bill is removed from the drawer, the magnet strip triggers a silent alarm signal to police dispatch. Known as "B-packs", these bait bills act like tracking bugs, in the same way a Lo-Jack device works in a stolen automobile. Many a "counter-jumper" arrested at home after what seemed like a successful bank job never learned until his court date how it was that the police were able to apprehend him with such apparent ease.5) Bank officials routinely intermix "disguised" rigid bundles of bank notes amongst the stacks of bricked and banded bank notes stored in the Bank's vault. Known as "dye packs", these camouflaged cash bundles when cracked open reveal a specially designed dye package nestled in the hollow.Dye packs are intended to work when removed by the robber from the bank's premises; they are triggered by electronic transmitters hidden in the floor. Timed to delay detonation for twenty or more seconds, upon detonation, they ignite at a searing 210 degrees Celsius - too hot for the thief to grab and throw - releasing an aerosol cloud of indelible red dye powder that turn bank robbers into human smoke bombs, voiding currency and staining human skin for days. Less well known is that some dye packs also emit a quick burst of incapacitating tear gas.6) Silent alarms are strategically located throughout the bank. Its worth noting, though, that most Banks train their staff not to hit the alarm until after the robbers have fled. It's a safety issue; plus Banks routinely carry kidnap and extortion ("K & E") insurance; imprudent actions by employees can, under certain circumstances, void coverage.Finally, keep in mind that local law enforcement operate Bank Robbery Task Forces in all the major cities; these are crack teams of bank robbery agents expert in crime detection, hostage negotiations, and tracking stolen currency.Editor's Note: The above information is in the public domain and is common knowledge to veteran bank heisters who routinely fan the wads of cash to spot-check for tracers and bait bills and use disguises to defeat surveillance. ("To alter a face, the most important feature is the eyebrows; change these and the face is 60%-70% different"). Bank robbery is a serious criminal offence punishable by long prison sentences.I hope this assists your understanding of the security measures Banks take to counter theft and armed robbery.With kind regardsRobertRobert CohenExecutive Director/Chief Legal OfficerSummit Global Investments GroupQuora Profile (Gold Writer): Robert Cohen