BIG BROTHER ALERT !!!

Run_to_da_hills · 10-12-2008 1:30pm

Diogenes wrote: »

I don't suppose you'd like to discuss the European Deceleration of Human Rights, or the European Court then?

No? Lets just post some pics then

As I said before and I will say it again, The European Court of Human Rights dose not exist when it comes to national security and the "war on terrorism"

Everytime I tag in with my RFID passport or ID card everything about me including finger and retina scans recorded at airports is at their disposal, criminal record, PPS and every thing about me. The Microchip in my passport is CONSTANTLY up dated as new counter terrorism measures are imposed.

When the UK RFID National ID gets rolled out nationally and it becomes compulsory to carry (As similar Non biometric cards do throughout the EU) one might as well use the European Deceleration of Human Rights as toilet paper.

Diogenes · 10-12-2008 1:32pm

WhaLofShi wrote: »

I think you're both being quite unfair here. If a persons first hand experience of an incident or incidents isn't taken as the truth on this forum, the whole thing is a waste of time. I'm sure he can't provide "links", and I'd imagine that he'd have to jump through a few hoops at this stage to find proof that his prints are on file.

Unfair lads. Unfair.

I personally witnessed Bin Laden take full responsibility for 911. We were having Fondue at the time.

Guess thats one sorted then.

Diogenes · 10-12-2008 1:41pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As I said before and I will say it again, The European Court of Human Rights dose not exist when it comes to national security and the "war on terrorism"

Yes you keep saying something along those lines, and I've cited at least two examples of the European Court of human rights finding against the UK and it's terrorism legislation.

You can ignore it, and claim it doesn't but the facts are there in black and white, and you come off as increasingly silly the more you do so.

Everytime I tag in with my RFID passport or ID card everything about me including finger and retina scans recorded at airports is at their disposal, criminal record, PPS and every thing about me. The Microchip in my passport is CONSTANTLY up dated as new counter terrorism measures are imposed.

Funnily enough I got a new passport last year, and it ain't got no microchip in it.

When the UK RFID National ID gets rolled out nationally and it becomes compulsory to carry (As similar Non biometric cards do throughout the EU) one might as well use the European Deceleration of Human Rights as toilet paper.

Again conjecture and speculation that ignores the proven track record of the EU court defending and upholding states rights.

But go on, please explain how ID cards will destroy the entire Declaration of Human Rights, elaborate please.

Furthermore after a year of embarrassing leaks and government slip ups with people's personal information, combined with the drastic economic downturn, there is little political will, nor the finance available to push this through, and the ID card scheme is currently on hold.

oppphs I guess the EU/NWO didn't think this through?

Run_to_da_hills · 10-12-2008 2:14pm

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes you keep saying something along those lines, and I've cited at least two examples of the European Court of human rights finding against the UK and it's terrorism legislation.

You can ignore it, and claim it doesn't but the facts are there in black and white, and you come off as increasingly silly the more you do so.

This is one of the reasons that I started this thread, to expose the system. People are brainwashed these days, they are docterined, if its a counter terrorism measure it must be OK. Same will be said about compulsory transit smart cards in due course that track all your movements.

Diogenes wrote: »

Funnily enough I got a new passport last year, and it ain't got no microchip in it.

You could possibly be holding a counterfeit. :eek:
Take a closer look at it again, ALL European passports issued since October 2006 has the "mark of the beast" logo on the cover signifying that it has an embedded RFID chip.

Further Information.
http://www.hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001003.html[/QUOTE]

Diogenes wrote: »

But go on, please explain how ID cards will destroy the entire Declaration of Human Rights, elaborate please.

Track and trace again, the retaining and releasing of data that may be unknown to the holder through electronic transfer. The Updating of records in a foreign country, possible convictions (Often convicted in the wrong) and the retaining of such records in a database that is passed around the globe to various international authorities in the "fight against terrorism".

Diogenes wrote: »

Furthermore after a year of embarrassing leaks and government slip ups with people's personal information, combined with the drastic economic downturn, there is little political will, nor the finance available to push this through, and the ID card scheme is currently on hold.

oppphs I guess the EU/NWO didn't think this through?

Similar happened in the UK, it was spoken of in 2002, fell through but creeped back last month. I guess it may take a "scare" for it to creep it to Ireland, possibly as an immigration or Airport security measure, then those on welfare, state pensions etc and eventually everyone. First optional then cumpulsory.

The National ID is basically a "credit card size passport", it will contain the exact same 13.56MHZ chip and retain the exact same data about you. The card is easier to carry, could possibly double up as a transit smart card for pensioners, a cash card, driving license, booze / fag ID and could eventually take the place of a passport. (It will replace the Passport in the EU block)

Mahatma coat wrote: »

yeah rtdh I used the term Hoonin in a very loose sense,

I was drivin my Diesel 60 Series LandCruiser, not really the most Boyracer'ý of cars

Anecdote/first hand account, depends on yer POV really dosent it

When I was out there the souped up Holden Kingswood HZ V8 seemed the favourite hoon car, most of them are probaly totaled by now. A few of my mates had the HQ panel van with the same block. nice roar off them.:)

King Mob · 10-12-2008 2:30pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This is one of the reasons that I started this thread, to expose the system. People are brainwashed these days, they are docterined, if its a counter terrorism measure it must be OK.

Critical thinking is the result of NWO Brainwashing?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Updating of records in a foreign country, possible convictions (Often convicted in the wrong)

Care to qualify or elaborate or even back up this point?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The National ID is basically a "credit card size passport", it will contain the exact same 13.56MHZ chip and retain the exact same data about you. The card is easier to carry, could possibly double up as a transit smart card for pensioners, a cash card, driving license, booze / fag ID and could eventually take the place of a passport. (It will replace the Passport in the EU block)

It could also possibly capture your soul when you die for easier storage by the NWO.

Alot of speculation not too much evidence or support.
It could also possibly

WhaLofShi · 10-12-2008 3:08pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

When the UK RFID National ID gets rolled out nationally and it becomes compulsory to carry (As similar Non biometric cards do throughout the EU) one might as well use the European Deceleration of Human Rights as toilet paper.

Freudian Slip ?
Or ?????????

Flamed Diving · 10-12-2008 6:36pm

WhaLofShi wrote: »

I think you're both being quite unfair here. If a persons first hand experience of an incident or incidents isn't taken as the truth on this forum, the whole thing is a waste of time. I'm sure he can't provide "links", and I'd imagine that he'd have to jump through a few hoops at this stage to find proof that his prints are on file.

Unfair lads. Unfair.

Ok, I apologise. May I offer my evidence?

I was walking down the street one day and bumped into Gordon Brown and George Bush, having a pint. They asked me to join, and soon enough I began asking them about the NWO and what-not. I managed to get them drunk enough to let me have a lash off their blackberry's and they gave me the secret password to gain access to ALL government files. I had a good rummage around (it has a google search feature) and I found no DNA database.

The end.

This is evidence. Anyone who disagrees with me submitting this is being unfair.

shayser · 05-01-2009 3:43am

Bad dose of the big brothers in these two Times articles:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5439604.ece
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3341761.ece

Run_to_da_hills · 05-02-2009 6:40am

Google launches new software to track mobile users in real time.

Google Latitude Revealed

Google is set to draw scrutiny to the privacy implications of "location-aware" mobile services with the announcement of a service that allows users to track the whereabouts of their friends automatically.

The Google Latitude service will take the company into the increasingly crowded mobile social-networking business. By downloading software to their mobiles, users in 27 countries will be able to broadcast their location to others constantly.

Privacy controls will make it possible for people to select who receives the information, or to go offline at any time. Recipients of the information will be able to track their friends' whereabouts on a Google map, either from a handset or from a PC.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=781

bonkey · 05-02-2009 8:25am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Privacy controls will make it possible for people to select who receives the information, or to go offline at any time.

So where's the problem?

Anyone carrying a phone knows that it transmits a signal and therefore can be traced.

Now, they can choose to let friends have access to that information if they wish to, or they can remain as "hidden" are they were before this service came along.

Again...where's the problem?

Run_to_da_hills · 05-02-2009 9:08am

bonkey wrote: »

So where's the problem?

Anyone carrying a phone knows that it transmits a signal and therefore can be traced.

Now, they can choose to let friends have access to that information if they wish to, or they can remain as "hidden" are they were before this service came along.

Again...where's the problem?

Whats stopping your boss or or place of work monitoring your company phone 24/7 which in many cases must be carried on you at all times even if you are not on duty.

bonkey · 05-02-2009 9:42am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Whats stopping your boss or or place of work monitoring your company phone 24/7 which in many cases must be carried on you at all times even if you are not on duty.

Which bit of "Privacy controls will make it possible for people to select who receives the information, or to go offline at any time." did you have a problem understanding?

ETA: A bit of reading (slashdot) also shows that this is nothing new. Several companies already offer similar services - Loopt, mologogo and brightkite, to name three.

Run_to_da_hills · 05-02-2009 10:16am

bonkey wrote: »

Which bit of "Privacy controls will make it possible for people to select who receives the information, or to go offline at any time." did you have a problem understanding?

ETA: A bit of reading (slashdot) also shows that this is nothing new. Several companies already offer similar services - Loopt, mologogo and brightkite, to name three.

You are at the discretion of Google and your service provider not to pas on this data, as we have already seen with the London congestion charge ANPR cameras live footage, there is no reason that this technology could also be passed on to the authorities and elsewhere under some "anti terrorism" ruiling.

I am well aware that simlar technologies such as text message location (Which wsas dropped by Google some time back) and cell sight analysis used by the authorities but this is just one step closer and has the potential danger of being hacked and abused.

There are already concerns that it could potentially place children at risk from pedophiles.

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Fears-over-Google-phone-.4948515.jp

bonkey · 05-02-2009 2:00pm

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are at the discretion of Google and your service provider not to pas on this data,

You always have been, so again this is nothing new. If you carry a device which transmits a signal, you are relying on the signal carrier not to divulge that information.

Looking more closely at Latitude, google also say the following:

From the Google Latitude privacy menu, you can choose to either detect and share your location automatically, set your location manually, hide your location from all friends, or turn off Latitude altogether.

See the bit I've underlined? It lets you lie about where you really are, if thats what you want to do. You can also restrict it to only showing what city[/i[ you're in, if that's what you prefer. And again...its your choice.

There are already concerns that it could potentially place children at risk from pedophiles.

I've no doubt there are any number of concerns. There's rarely a shortage of people willing to stand up and express concern about something new. It doesn't mean they're right.

The real question is whether or not those concerns are valid and realistic.

As noted in the article, google's response was that the user has to choose to enable the service and gets to choose who gets to see it. So again, they're making it clear that the user is in control of who gets to see their data.

The threat underlying these concerns really lies elsewhere. It lies in kids being tricked by social engineering to give strangers information that they shouldn't give. When I was a kid it was simpler...you knew not to talk to strangers and that was pretty much that. Today, with modern communications rife, most people don't stop to think about the ramifications of giving their kids literally a free hand in how they use it. Ask parents if they know how to make it clear to their kid talk to strangers, and they'll get outraged. Ask them if they know how to do the same with internet access or SMS, and you'll probably find a different response.

You don't want your kid to be traceable over Latitude? Then don't give them a phone which can run it. You don't want them to be traceable over mobile phone at all, then don't give them a phone. "But I want to be able to talk to my child"....then accept the risk-cost that comes with that and manage it.

Our parents didn't lock us up rather than run the risk that we'd talk to strangers. They didn't ensure that we were never out of their sight. They accepted the risk-cost of those decisions. Modern communications are no different...except maybe that (some) parents don't think it through.

Run_to_da_hills · 08-02-2009 2:30am

Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, peers have warned.

CCTV cameras and the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, the Lords constitution committee said.

It called for compensation for people subject to illegal surveillance.

The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential" to fight crime but campaign group Liberty said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7872425.stm

Run_to_da_hills · 09-02-2009 2:07am

Nothing new here but anyway, its on topic.

Beware, Big Brother is watching your trips abroad: Government plans to store details of ordinary people's journeys into and out of UK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138953/Beware-Big-Brother-watching-trips-abroad-Government-plans-store-details-ordinary-peoples-journeys-UK.html

Run_to_da_hills · 17-02-2009 9:57am

Former chief of M15 accuses Labour of creating a Police State.

A former spy chief last night accused Labour of turning Britain into a 'police state' by cynically exploiting the public's fear of terrorism.

Dame Stella Rimington, the first female head of MI5, warned the Government was playing into the hands of extremists by eroding our civil liberties

Labour has brought in plans for microchipped ID cards, the introduction of electronic border checks, the detention of terror suspects for 28 days without charge, electronic thumb scanners, control orders, and powers to stop and search individuals without reason.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7893890.stm?lss

Run_to_da_hills · 19-02-2009 1:13am

Big Brother-style plans to force pubs to install CCTV cameras raise ‘serious privacy concerns’, the surveillance watchdog has warned.

Police are telling pubs, clubs, restaurants and off-licenses they will not support their licensing applications unless they agree to train the intrusive cameras on their customers.

Owners also have to promise to hand over to the police any CCTV footage requested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1148244/Pubs-ordered-install-Big-Brother-CCTV-cameras--risk-losing-licences.html

040908_SavageCCTV_hmed_830a.hmedium.jpg

Run_to_da_hills · 20-03-2009 2:39pm

Dozens of pictures from Google's new Street View service have been removed after privacy concerns were voiced. Areas of cities across the UK have been 'blacked out' after a string of complaints from people captured by the U.S. firm's cameras.

Images of several homes were removed along with a one picture showing a man emerging from a sex shop in Soho, central London. Street View allows users to zoom in on homes and properties across the country, sometimes even through windows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7954596.stm

Flamed Diving · 20-03-2009 2:51pm

Forced?

"We've got millions of images, so the percentage removed was very small," Google's Laura Scott told the BBC.

"We want this to be a useful tool and it's people's right to have their image removed.

"The fact there are now gaps [in Street View] shows how responsive we are," she added.

Who forced them? People asked them to remove their image, and they did.

Run_to_da_hills · 31-03-2009 9:57pm

BIG BROTHER ALERT !!!

Surveillance box to track and trace vehicle drivers is backed by EU commission.

I posted this under a seperate heading in the Motoring forum, It is also worthy of this forum because the subject concerns the totalitarian control of individuals movements under the "watchful eye of Big Brother".

The UK government is backing a project to install a “communication box” in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.

Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant “heartbeat” revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions. At the same time this device will track and digitally store all your movements. :eek:

A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as 2013.

European-wide car tracking system. Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project, a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.

More.

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=856

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/31/surveillance-transport-communication-box

bonkey · 01-04-2009 7:13am

I note that you've posted the exact same article via the two links. Do you've a reason for that, or did you just not realise they were the same?

In addition, your claim that the system is "to track the whereabouts of drivers" is (mostly) unfounded. The system is primarily for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-control-center communication, for traffic management. The identification of the driver isn't included in that. Indeed, there's nothing in there to say that the system would even identify between cars.

Your bolded claim that the device will store vehicle movement is also not supported by anything in the article.

The notion at the end - that combining car-tracking data with mobile-phone data to tell you where people are is perhaps the most interesting point in the whole article. It implicitly admits that you'd need the mobile-phone data to identify who is in the car. It also ignores the fact that if you can use the mobile-phone data to identify who is in the car, then you can use mobile-phone data to identify where the mobile-phone carrier is....making the CVIS data irrelevant.

Mahatma coat · 01-04-2009 7:51am

Rtdh did you write taht guardian article??

Run_to_da_hills · 01-04-2009 8:08am

bonkey wrote: »

I note that you've posted the exact same article via the two links. Do you've a reason for that, or did you just not realize they were the same?

In addition, your claim that the system is "to track the whereabouts of drivers" is (mostly) unfounded. The system is primarily for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-control-center communication, for traffic management. The identification of the driver isn't included in that. Indeed, there's nothing in there to say that the system would even identify between cars.

Your bolded claim that the device will store vehicle movement is also not supported by anything in the article.

The notion at the end - that combining car-tracking data with mobile-phone data to tell you where people are is perhaps the most interesting point in the whole article. It implicitly admits that you'd need the mobile-phone data to identify who is in the car. It also ignores the fact that if you can use the mobile-phone data to identify who is in the car, then you can use mobile-phone data to identify where the mobile-phone carrier is....making the CVIS data irrelevant.

Yea, I work for the Guardian, I wrote that article, blame me if all those facts are wrong, :rolleyes:

And yes I did post this in the motoring forum under its own separate heading. (Less the conspiracy content) and gave I my reason.

"CVIS aims to design, develop and test new technologies needed to allow vehicles to communicate with each other and with the nearby roadside infrastructure".

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/rtd_projects/fact_sheets/call_4/cvis.pdf

bonkey · 01-04-2009 8:56am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yea, I work for the Guardian, I wrote that article, blame me if all those facts are wrong, :rolleyes:

Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the facts in the Guardian piece are wrong at all, so spare us the eye-rolling, thanks.

I've pointed out that you've made claims which aren't supported by the Guardian piece.

I've also pointed out that one of the opinions which is offered through the Guardian piece doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

This is a discussion forum. I'm trying to discuss the content you provided and your comments on it. I find it disheartening that you seem to find something objectionable in that, and prefer to resort to this eye-rolling rather than explaining how you concluded that the system will track drivers or how you concluded that the device will store information.

If you got that from other sources, then may I be so bold as to suggest you'd have been better off providing these multiple sources, rather than the two links to the same article.

Run_to_da_hills · 01-04-2009 10:19am

bonkey wrote: »

Neither I nor anyone else has suggested that the facts in the Guardian piece are wrong at all, so spare us the eye-rolling, thanks. .

Firstly I apologies for the "rolleyes."

bonkey wrote: »

I've pointed out that you've made claims which aren't supported by the Guardian piece..

My claims may not be supported by the Guardian but nevertheless they are logical.

It is said that "pictures say a 1000 words" Take a look at the picture on top of this link. It says everything about the system and needs very little explanation.

On the left you have gantries (Similar to Easypass toll gantries) collecting information on passing motorists, in the center you have vehicle to vehicle communication and on the right you have a database with CCTV monitors. You could not get any clearer than this. http://www.cvisproject.org/

bonkey wrote: »

Your bolded claim that the device will store vehicle movement is also not supported by anything in the article..

I'm sure that this is all covered by the EU Data Retention act SEC(2005) 1131 or something similar where digital data must be retained for a duration of up to two years.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73478?condense_comments=true&comment_order=desc

bonkey · 01-04-2009 11:08am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Firstly I apologies for the "rolleyes."

Apology accepted.

It is said that "pictures say a 1000 words" Take a look at the picture on top of this link. It says everything about the system and needs very little explanation.

On the left you have gantries (Similar to Easypass toll gantries) collecting information on passing motorists, in the center you have vehicle to vehicle communication and on the right you have a database with CCTV monitors. You could not get any clearer than this. http://www.cvisproject.org/

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "clearer".

CCTV monitors are useless for driver identification. You could argue that the same footage being captured could be processed by computer, but the control room full of monitors is only useful to have an overview of traffic-flow, to be honest. But again, the driver identification there would be via the cameras...whether or not CVIS existed or not would make no difference.

Similarly, the diagram shows that the purposes of the communication are about traffic flow. It might be relevant to know the make/model of a given vehicle, so that its performance and size can be taken into account, but its registration or who is driving it are completely seperate.

So I don't believe its clearly established, or a logical implication that the purpose of the system would be to track drivers.

I'm sure that this is all covered by the EU Data Retention act SEC(2005) 1131 or something similar where digital data must be retained for a duration of up to two years.

In that case, the device wouldn't need to store the information...rather any information which was transmitted over a telecommunication network would be impacted. Even then, it is only the log - the detail that information was passed - which would be covered, and not the contents of the message itself.

Run_to_da_hills · 01-04-2009 12:14pm

bonkey wrote: »

Apology accepted.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "clearer".

CCTV monitors are useless for driver identification. You could argue that the same footage being captured could be processed by computer, but the control room full of monitors is only useful to have an overview of traffic-flow, to be honest. But again, the driver identification there would be via the cameras...whether or not CVIS existed or not would make no difference.

I agree it may be very difficult to tie in the driver with the vehicle nevertheless it is up to the responsibility of the registered owner of the vehicle of who is behind the wheel. Technology exists that can tie in the driver with the vehicle such as highly accurate CCTV with facial recognition and mobile phone cell site analysis. They could also link faces to locations and vehicles through cashless fuel purchases, service station loyalty cards and service station CCTV.

bonkey wrote: »

Similarly, the diagram shows that the purposes of the communication are about traffic flow. It might be relevant to know the make/model of a given vehicle, so that its performance and size can be taken into account, but its registration or who is driving it are completely separate.

More and more of this technology is being shared with different departments. Example as I have mentioned before, the London congestion charge is also shared live by the Metropolitan Police force. I'm sure this service is also shared with the DVLA database and the inland revenue commissioners.

bonkey wrote: »

So I don't believe its clearly established, or a logical implication that the purpose of the system would be to track drivers.
.

You have a situation at the minute in London with the G20 summet. Such a tracking system would be invaluable for the authorities.

bonkey wrote: »

In that case, the device wouldn't need to store the information...rather any information which was transmitted over a telecommunication network would be impacted. Even then, it is only the log - the detail that information was passed - which would be covered, and not the contents of the message itself.

What would be the point of having the system and not retaining the information? Data is needed for feedback for the system to operate.

Run_to_da_hills · 18-04-2009 3:52am

BIG BROTHER ALERT!!!

This is just one of the new powers that are contained in the recent wide ranged criminal Justice Surveillance bill introduced to combat gangland crime.

Accountants and lawyers face having their offices and homes bugged if gardaí suspect they are destroying financial records owned by their gangland clients or are creating false records on their behalf, it has emerged.

A Garda superintendent or higher and a Revenue official at principal officer rank or higher can sanction the planting of bugging devices for 72 hours in the offices of professionals, without the need for court approval, once they believe financial records are being destroyed or falsified.

We can see a lot lot of running taps and wasted water over this new bill.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...244975994.html

bonkey · 18-04-2009 11:50am

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

.
We can see a lot lot of running taps and wasted water over this new bill.

Only by people doing something they would be concerned about having the police know about....which would typically be illegal activities.

Flamed Diving · 27-04-2009 3:12pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8020039.stm

Sorry, I have no fancy pictures to go with this.

RTDH?

Run_to_da_hills · 28-04-2009 1:09am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8020039.stm

Sorry, I have no fancy pictures to go with this.

RTDH?

I have and it hasn't changed at all since the start of this thred

http://imagecache5.art.com/p/LRG/9/947/78GK000Z/big-brother-is-watching-you.jpg

BIG BROTHER ALERT !!!

Comments