How comfortable are you in giving Google and other tech companies un-elected power of what goes on in your house? It’s a question that Tucker Carlson recently asked as a result of recently submitted Google patents.

On his Fox News show this week, Carlson showcased a series of Google patents that should make people think twice about what’s going inside of their homes.

In a monologue Monday night, Carlson described the potential spying power of the potentially patented systems, before beginning interviews with two experts in the field of “addiction” when it comes to electronic devices.

Check out the monologue in the first two minutes of the video here:

TRENDING: Man Kills Cellmate, Then Says “1 Less Child Molester on the Streets”

The first patent Carlson talks about is a camera that could be put inside your bedroom. Yes, you read that correctly; a camera in your bedroom.

According to a patent that was filed in September of 2016, the camera will read what is inside of a room and offer you advertising based on what it finds there.

The example Google gives is that a camera in your room would notice you have “The Godfather” book on your nightstand. As a result, it will suggest you watch or purchase the movie “The Godfather.”

Pretty creepy, huh? But that’s just one patent. Another patent that Carlson describes now moves into the realm of parenting. Because, let’s be honest, who doesn’t want Google to parent their kids, right?

Carlson says, “In another patent application from September 2016, Google imagines how it could take control of your parenting, your relationship with your children.”

He goes on to explain. “Google’s smart home system could detect children near a liquor cabinet for example, or in their parents bedroom, infer that ‘mischief is occurring’ and deliver a verbal warning,” he says.

Another example that Carlson cites involves proposed Google patent that describes a fictional child named Benjamin. Google would watch Benjamin as he plays, whether it be inside or outside. Based on Benjamin’s playing habits, Carlson said, Google could use that information to later suggest products to him “because that’s the whole point of Google.”

RELATED: Prisoners Get Free Tablets as Other Americans Work Fingers to the Bone to Make Ends Meet

There’s nothing that makes a parent feel more comfortable than knowing Google is watching your child play, right? But it gets worse.

Carlson also pointed out that Google said the same patent describes a device that could use the information gathered by the cameras to “coach” you in “areas of improvement.” For instance, Carlson said, if a family isn’t eating together enough, the device could “scold” them and tell them to start eating together more.

Congratulations. Big Brother just entered the building.

According to Carlson, Google’s response for the report was there’s nothing to worry about because they “file patent applications on a variety of ideas that our employees come up with. Some of those ideas later mature into real products or services, some don’t.”

In other words, as Carlson points out, what they are really saying is “Don’t worry, we’re not spying on you … yet. We just have a patent for it.”

The eerie key word is “yet.”

Please like and share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think of these patents by Google.

Do you think these patents cross a line? Scroll down to comment below!

A Yale-published study claiming to mirror Facebook’s new methodology for sorting “broadly trusted” news sources from partisan news inadvertently undermines its author’s own advocacy of the methodology by listing far-left sites Salon.com and HuffingtonPost as “mainstream” while packing its “hyper-partisan” category with right-of-center news sources.

Politico ran with the headline “GOP voters trust CNN, N.Y. Times over Breitbart, InfoWars.” A more accurate headline would have been “Single Working Paper With Questionable Methodology Shows GOP Voters Trust CNN Over Breitbart.” But that probably would have got them fewer clicks.

What the study actually shows, by the authors’ own admission, is that mainstream media sources are most likely to achieve a “broadly trusted” rating by surveyed subjects due to their name recognition, not due to the quality of their journalism.

In the study, the authors admit that if Facebook were to sort news on the basis of “trustworthiness” surveys, it would favor established, mainstream outlets and punish new media — because newer, unfamiliar sources are less likely to be trusted.

Given the apparent role of familiarity in judgments of trustworthiness, highly rigorous news sources that are less-well known (or that are new) are likely to receive low trust ratings – and thus will have difficulty gaining prominence on social media. Relatedly, it is unclear how the crowdsourcing approach will scale when trying to cover the massive number of outlets which produce news content online, many (perhaps most) of which will be unfamiliar to most raters.

Nevertheless, the authors of the study — one of whom recently retweeted a post calling the Nunes memo a “stunt” born from “right-wing fever swamps” that “recklessly breathe life into conspiracy theories.” — claim this is totally fine. In fact, they think Facebook doesn’t go far enough.

The problem, according to Rand, is that Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will only count users’ trust ratings for sites that they say they’ve heard of. In other words, if a user’s answer to the first question—do you recognize this website?—is no, their answer to the second question is thrown out.

Rand said that broad unfamiliarity with a site can be a good signal that it’s unreliable. After all, “fake news” is often peddled on URL’s that few would have ever heard of.

Such an approach would, by the authors’ own admission, favor established, recognizable news outlets and punish newer sites. That includes openly right-wing news sites like Breitbart News, but also anti-establishment voices of the left that are despised by the mainstream, like Glenn Greenwald’s The Intercept.

The authors also demonstrate their super-sound judgment and academic objectivity in their list of “mainstream” and “hyper-partisan” news sources.

The “hyper-partisan” list is dominated by right-of-center news outlets, as well as Heat Street, a now-defunct site that was opposed to the partisan left, but not necessarily in favor of the partisan right. Only 6 sites on the 20-strong list, Daily Kos, US Uncut, Palmer Report, New Century Times, True Activist and Dailynewsbin are unarguably of the partisan left.

Meanwhile, their list of “mainstream” news sources include the notoriously far-left Salon.com, and the Huffington Post, which Andrew Breitbart praised for being “openly and loudly and radically leftist” in contrast to actual “mainstream” publications like the New York Times that attempt to hide their bias.

To compile their list of “hyper-partisan” news sites, the authors relied on sources that are themselves partisan. One is a list from BuzzFeed news, known for its left-wing, anti-Trump coverage. BuzzFeed once banned a centrist vlogger from their platform for creating a quiz called “What Type Of Anti-Feminist Are You.” Another fun way to discern BuzzFeed’s bias is to do a search for all the times they’ve used “white male” in their headlines.

A second source was media professor Melissa Zimdars, who describes recent Fox News reporting as “propaganda,” and has listed Breitbart News, The Blaze, and Independent Journal Review (IJR) as “fake news sites.” The third and final source was an unnamed colleague of the authors.

The initial study also claimed that news sites listed in the “hyper-partisan” category have “no editorial norms.” In an email correspondence with Breitbart News, one of the authors, David Rand, admitted that this statement was off the mark.

“I guess rather than “no editorial norms,” what we meant was “weaker editorial norms,” particularly with respect to impartiality/non-politically-biased coverage” said Rand.

Rand has published an updated version of the study, which now says hyper-partisan sites have “weaker or non-existent” editorial norms compared to mainstream news. The new study also adds an asterisk next to Salon.com to acknowledge that the site might, in Rand’s words, “reasonably be considered hyper-partisan.”

The study’s findings are based on a sample of 1,011 people, with a median age of 36, 64.1% of whom were women, then the claim that GOP voters trust CNN over Breitbart is true. But the sample is inherently biased against conservative, pro-Trump politics. At the last election, female voters backed Hillary Clinton by 54 per cent to 42 per cent. The young median age of 36 is also a factor: in 2016, the 18-29 and 30-44 age demographics supported Clinton over Trump by wide margins.

If Facebook’s methodology for determining “broadly trusted” news sites is similar to that of this study, as its authors suggest, then it is likely to vastly inflate the “trustworthiness” rankings of mainstream news networks, many of which are the least trusted brands in America. A Gravis Marketing poll last year found that half of Americans believe that CNN does not provide objective news and analysis — a number which included 27.2 percent of Democratic respondents.

Although Facebook has said they will throw out the ratings of users who say they are unfamiliar with a news source, a spokesman confirmed to Politico that the social network will still take a source’s name recognition into account — although they would not reveal how.

“This is about getting feedback from people who use Facebook in order to improve quality — and fight clickbait, sensationalism, and misinformation” said the Facebook rep. “It’s not about stack-ranking news organizations. If a broad sample of people recognize a news organization and trust it, that’s a good thing. If they don’t recognize it or don’t trust it, that’s not as good.”

One thing that the study proves conclusively is that people are far less likely to trust sources they don’t recognize. If Facebook is judging sources by their name recognition, that’s good news for the establishment, and bad news for anyone who hoped the internet would create a truly open marketplace of ideas.

Breitbart News is currently listed by Alexa as the 53rd most popular website in America.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Contact him securely at allumbokhari@protonmail.com

First daughter Ivanka Trump has turned to conservatives to make a deal to pass a series of policies that are straight from the Democratic Party’s playbook, since she discovered that the Democrats are more focused on passing their own agenda than doing what is best for the country.

“I’m no longer surprised,” Ivanka Trump told USA Today about discovering first-hand the reality that Democrats would not work with her because they are more focused on passing their own agenda than doing what is best for the country. “I think that there are always people that will not move off of their talking points and then there are a lot of people who will,” Trump said. “You have to find the people who will; that’s how you build coalitions.”

According to USA Today:

Ivanka Trump showed up in Washington last year with a to-do list of policies straight from the Democratic Party playbook. The president’s daughter — a former Democratic donor — wanted the administration to tackle paid family leave, equal pay for women and affordable childcare.

She thought Democrats would join her in trying to move the agenda forward — after all, these were issues they had been championing for years and the president had just campaigned on some of them. But Democrats said her plan did not go far enough and while still discussing the issues with her, they have largely avoided teaming up with her. So the former businesswoman has turned to conservatives to try to make a deal.

Asked why she thought the Democrats were not collaborating well with her, despite their outspoken support for policies Trump is seeking to push, she reportedly said, “It’s always easier to be for something and not get it done than to accommodate another perspective and get it done.”

This comes despite reports in March of last year that Democrats “love” her plan for affordable child care and paid family leave and a report from the month before that Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said she was seeking Trump’s help to get support for her Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. The act would reportedly provide six weeks of guaranteed paid leave to all male and female federal employees after the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.

During her speech at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) in India, in November, Trump praised international efforts to improve and expand the role of women in parts of the developing world. She also lauded her father’s administration’s efforts to see this through saying, “Only when women are empowered to thrive will our families, our economies and our societies reach their fullest potential.”

On the issue of child tax credits, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), who reportedly described Trump as a friend and ally said, “I’m not sure why in the world we would allow the Democrats to control family issues, that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.”

As for the politics of it, conservative members of Congress like Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, told USA Today that he’s met with Trump several times about topics “that conservatives would normally not be in favor of.” However, he reportedly noted, “She makes very compelling cases.”

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

Here’s a tip: Submarines are supposed to run underwater. They are not, however, designed to be filled with water.

India’s navy learned that lesson the hard way after an embarrassing mistake with their flagship nuclear submarine left it crippled and out of operation.

According to The Hindu, the vessel INS Arihant is the first nuclear-powered sub built by India, and was intended to be a linchpin in the nation’s defense plans. However, the craft has not sailed for over 10 months after “human error” caused a port in the hull to stay open and water to pour in.

“Arihant’s propulsion compartment was damaged after water entered it,” the Indian newspaper reported.

“A naval source said water rushed in as a hatch on the rear side was left open by mistake while it was at harbour. Since the accident, the submarine, built under the Advanced Technology Vessel project (ATV), has been undergoing repairs and clean up,” The Hindu continued.

TRENDING: Man Kills Cellmate, Then Says “1 Less Child Molester on the Streets”

The problem isn’t just the seawater that rushed in, but also sensitive pipes within the submarine that were damaged by the salt-heavy sea.

“Indian authorities likely felt that pipes exposed to corrosive seawater couldn’t be trusted again, particularly pipes that carry pressurized water coolant to and from the ship’s 83 megawatt nuclear reactor,” Popular Mechanics explained.

“Failing pipes could not only endanger the ship’s crew but the entire submarine… and her nuclear weapons,” the technology magazine elaborated.

To call it an expensive mistake would be putting it mildly.

“India’s first ballistic missile submarine is the result of a $2.9 billion submarine technology program. Construction on Arihant began in 2009, and the ship was commissioned into the Indian Navy seven years later in October 2016,” said Popular Mechanics.

The U.S. magazine posed a question that must be at the top of the Indian admiralty’s minds.

“How in the world could a $2.9 billion submarine be sidelined by a simple mistake? Not leaving hatches open that could potentially sink a ship, particularly a submarine, is basic common sense.”

“Why were the propulsion section and nuclear reactor on the 364-foot long submarine unattended so the flooding went unnoticed as long as it did?” the magazine wondered.

RELATED: “Mad Dog” Handles Terrorist Personally After Failed Assassination Attempt

The accident is particularly embarrassing considering how rare and prestigious a working nuclear submarine program is in the world. There are only six nations with ballistic nuclear submarines: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, and of course the good ol’ U.S. of A.

It just goes to show how vital it is to cover the basics, no matter how “advanced” the piece of military hardware. That’s an important reminder for America as well, and our Navy would be wise to learn from other people’s mistakes.

Press “Share on Facebook” if you found this military mess-up interesting!

What’s your reaction to this costly error? Scroll down to comment below!

Federal District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whom President Donald Trump criticized during the 2016 presidential campaign, will hear a case against Trump’s proposed border wall project in a San Diego courtroom on Friday.

The San Diego-area ABC News affiliate reports:

The case, which is being brought by the state of California and multiple groups, challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s power to waive environmental laws in their construction of a border wall.

District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is scheduled to hear the case on Friday in his San Diego courtroom.

The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration is violating the Constitution and state laws because it is not “conducting any environmental review or complying with any environmental protection laws.” But the federal government, citing a 1996 immigration law, says it has the authority to waive environmental laws in order to build the wall, a top campaign promise of Trump’s.

The administration notes that previous challenges to this law have been unsuccessful, saying it “has been repeatedly upheld in the face of legal challenges.”

Trump criticized Judge Curiel in 2016 when he was presiding over a fraud lawsuit filed against Trump University.

As Breitbart News reported at the time:

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Trump reiterated earlier claimsthat the federal judge presiding in a fraud case against Trump University in California could be biased against him simply because he is Hispanic.

Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel, of the Southern District of California, was nominated by President Barack Obama, and later confirmed by voice vote in the Senate in 2012 without controversy.

After attending Indiana University for both college and law school, and before becoming a judge, he served for 17 years as a federal prosecutor in California, specializing in narcotics–which, theoretically, should endear him to Trump, who has made stopping the flow of drugs a key point in his border policy. Curiel also happens to be Mexican-American.

Trump has not explained clearly why Curiel’s background means he would be unfair, and he has not said whether he plans to ask the judge to recuse himself.

In he event, Judge Curiel delayed the case until after Election Day. The parties settled for $25 million, with “no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Trump or Trump University,” according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.