Another scam to fastrack the populations into using microchipped biometric passports.

Run_to_da_hills

We all know emigration queues are a pain in the a*ss, often waiting from between 30 minutes to an hour. Well now the authorities are doing the Ryanair and charging a fee of £50 to jump the queue.

If you hold a biometric passport you can jump the queue free of charge.

Contravertial Biometric Passports were introduced into most countries after 2006 in a move to help fight "international terrorism" after sept 11. :rolleyes:

Ireland has to wait another 6 1/2 years before conventional passports are phased out.



What a better way to fastrack these passports than to slap an exorbitant penalty to those that wish to have the privilege to hold on to their conventional passports until they expire.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Air-Travel-Flight-Passengers-Can-Pay-50-To-Jump-The-Queue-At-Immigration-Desks-At-The-Airport/Article/200910115399510?lpos=Business_Article_Related_Content_Region_9&lid=ARTICLE_15399510_Air_Travel%3A_Flight_Passengers_Can_Pay_%3F50_To_Jump_The_Queue_At_Immigration_Desks_At_The_Airport

PirateShampoo

So whats your problem?

Is it that you have to use a passport to fly to another country or that the old passports need to be updated has there easy to forge.

Nothing wrong with better security in place if it stops undisirables coming into the country.


Whats the conspiracy? Is it that we will have to pay for a new passport or that people who own these new ones wont have to que?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What a better way to fastrack these passports than to slap an exorbitant penalty to those that wish to have the privilege to hold on to their conventional passports until they expire.

But your not being slapped with a penalty.
They're offering a convience.
If you're paranoid you don't have to pay extra money.

And what's so bad about biometic passports exactly?
They contain the same information a regular passport does but are harder to forge and less likely to be used in identity theft.

Torakx

"Many passengers can already jump the immigration queue by undergoing the IRIS test which matches passengers eyes against their information on a database."
copy pasted form the news site.

i think what the worry could be is this tippy toe stepping into the age of information.where your eyes will be scanned by officers so you cannot hide your identity.
maybe later when you are forced to eat gm foods and try to start a seed bank you will not be able to if its illegal like in some places already.
that is if your eyes have been scanned. they only need to scan your eyes then to ask your name and try to fit the fiction personae from your passport to the human person.this means people are further locked into this society.

if that seems like not a bad thing then that should be the individuals choice.with limited options now to get your food without joining this law society and getting worse every year.how will we survive so easy when we have even less control over our lives.

i think this is one of the many ways they are trying to encourage chippng people afterwards.you must lead people in small steps or they may be shocked at the end you wish them to be in.

ps if anyone is confused why i talk about hiding from police and eye scanners it is because of the freeman movement i presume this will be pushed faster.when you are a "freeman" you do not apply the law societies laws to you.
if done right you can seperate your human name from the fiction character the law society gives you.
this fictional character is by LAW a person and if you decide to represent your person then you apply all of said societies laws to your body.
a freeman would claim to be a signature for that fictional character thereby able to free himself from slavery.
it isnt all that simple or an easy life but that is why i think that rfid chips and eye/hand scanners will become more frequent.it helps attach all this info and laws to the human being.that is what i believe is the real motive for these machines.
not to help customeers and possibly a bonus is the extra money they will make.but imo number one motive is control.

Run_to_da_hills

My concern about these electronic passports is the potential to store / give access to confidential data that could be used against you at a port of entry or within a country. It could be also used by someone in authority that has absolutely no business to know your personal details.

The following is a scenario that could well happen.
The authorities imposes a mandatory vaccination programme that you totally disagree with because you know that its a corporate scam. You are refused permission to leave the country because you don't have the appropriate vaccination clearance certificate stored in your passport.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My concern about these electronic passports is the potential to store / give access to confidential data that could be used against you at a port of entry or within a country. It could be also used by someone in authority that has absolutely no business to know your personal details.

The following is something that could well happen.
The authorities imposes a mandatory vaccination programme that you totally disagree with because you know that its a corporate scam. You are refused permission to leave the the country because you don't have the appropriate vaccination clearance certificate stored in your passport.

And which laws in which country actually allow them to do that?

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

And which laws in which country actually allow them to do that?

The 1947 Health Act which includes compulsory vaccinations, quarantine travel bans and this could just be the start of it.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Here.

There isn't anything in the health act that can bar you from travel.
and there certainly isn't anything about a "vaccination stamp" for your passport.

Also it's been shown in another thread that there are no plans to bring in mandatory vaccinations anywhere.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

There isn't anything in the health act that can bar you from travel.
and there certainly isn't anything about a "vaccination stamp" for your passport.

Also it's been shown in another thread that there are no plans to bring in mandatory vaccinations anywhere.

Again read the article and the text of the 1947 health act. :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Again read the article and the text of the 1947 health act. :rolleyes:

I have.
There is nothing in there about passport or vaccination stamps.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

I have.
There is nothing in there about passport or vaccination stamps.

1947 Health Act – which include compulsory vaccinations, quarantine and travel bans :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

1947 Health Act – which include compulsory vaccinations, quarantine and travel bans :rolleyes:

Yes that's what the folks at wiseupjournal keep saying, and you keep editing into you posts after I reply to them.

But there is no such mention in the actual act of any of the stuff you are claiming about the passports.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Yes that's what the folks at wiseupjournal keep saying, and you keep editing into you posts after I reply to them.

But there is no such mention in the actual act of any of the stuff you are claiming about the passports.

In fact I am wrong.

The passport will have no health certificated stored in them. It will only give access to your state medical records when scanned at port of entry.

BTW the wiseupjournal quoted the Irish Star for that article. :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In fact I am wrong.

The passport will have no health certificated stored in them. It will only give access to your state medical records when scanned.

Source for this claim?

And can you are can you not show how you can be banned from travel because you refused a mandatory vaccine?

In fact, can you show a single example of anything similar happening?

VinnyTGM

OP, your claim's seem false.

Run_to_da_hills

VinnyTGM wrote: »

OP, your claim's seem false.

Why? Its obvious.

The exact same sweetener tactics have successfully used to usher in the London Oystercard despite the earlier privacy concerns. Penalties of up to 60% more are imposed on fares if you do not wish to comply with Oyster. You are also subject to long queues and delays.

Its also an unfair system as £50 is a hell of a lot of cash for this privilage for many non UK nationals and in most cases It would be far cheaper for them to purchase a new biometric passport in advance then to pay the £50.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why? Its obvious.

The exact same sweetener tactics have successfully used to usher in the London Oystercard despite the earlier privacy concerns. Penalties of up to 60% more are imposed on fares if you do not wish to comply with Oyster. You are also subject to long queues and delays.

THERES NO PENALTIES. Tickets cost more as an incentive to use Oyster as it is faster and cheaper. We've been over this on the other thread. Even if London became Oyster only, they would need a system for occasional visitors/tourists/etc...

It's utterly maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this simple and basic flaw in your argument.

BTW the wiseupjournal quoted the Irish Star for that article.

Theres an entire thread that debunks the Star piece. If you're really basing your opinion on the Irish Star, you're in trouble out of the gate.

Diogenes

Torakx wrote: »

ps if anyone is confused why i talk about hiding from police and eye scanners it is because of the freeman movement i presume this will be pushed faster.when you are a "freeman" you do not apply the law societies laws to you.
if done right you can seperate your human name from the fiction character the law society gives you.
this fictional character is by LAW a person and if you decide to represent your person then you apply all of said societies laws to your body.
a freeman would claim to be a signature for that fictional character thereby able to free himself from slavery.
it isnt all that simple or an easy life but that is why i think that rfid chips and eye/hand scanners will become more frequent.it helps attach all this info and laws to the human being.that is what i believe is the real motive for these machines.
not to help customeers and possibly a bonus is the extra money they will make.but imo number one motive is control.

Um, christ, do you really think you can avoid the court system just by some kind of announcement?

Torakx

Diogenes wrote: »

Um, christ, do you really think you can avoid the court system just by some kind of announcement?

not totally avoid no,it is quite obvious with a police force or military you can be accosted and dragged behind bars.to what extent i guess depends on the different laws they have. it also brings other issues because from then on you are on your own and need to grow your own food in the future.
probably create your onw electricity and so on.i wont go that much into freeman law it is easy enough to google john davis or rob menard for more info.

i was just showing that this process of bringing in new things to stick information to the human being physically is also a form of solidifying the control the system has over us already.

PirateShampoo

Isnt "Freeman" just a fancy word for "Traveller"?

Its nonsense the whole concept of what your suggesting. While you might get away with it if your staying within your own country, im pretty sure you would be looking at a spell banged up until you coped on.

Diogenes

Torakx wrote: »

not totally avoid no,it is quite obvious with a police force or military you can be accosted and dragged behind bars.to what extent i guess depends on the different laws they have. it also brings other issues because from then on you are on your own and need to grow your own food in the future.
probably create your onw electricity and so on.i wont go that much into freeman law it is easy enough to google john davis or rob menard for more info

I'm aware of the concept of Freeman. Its nuts. You are still bound by laws of the country you are in. It doesn't matter if you live "off grid" or not.

i was just showing that this process of bringing in new things to stick information to the human being physically is also a form of solidifying the control the system has over us already.

Yeah DNA, and oh y'know fingerprints, passports and well the entire concept of citizenship all had you before this.

This Freeman stuff is incredibly bizarre and utterly irrational. Theres an idiotic clip on youtube of some chancer trying this in an irish courtroom. He not only had to pay the fine, he spent some time in prison and got an additional penalty for wasting court time.

So apparently stupidity is a crime.

Run_to_da_hills

Diogenes wrote: »

THERES NO PENALTIES. Tickets cost more as an incentive to use Oyster as it is faster and cheaper. We've been over this on the other thread.

No Penalties and yet you are charged £4 for a trip paid by cash from Tottinham Court Road to Waterloo while the same trip by Oyster is only £1.50. :rolleyes:

Diogenes wrote: »

Even if London became Oyster only, they would need a system for occasional visitors/tourists/etc.

Registered Oystercards may even be sold from "touch card" vending machines using your chipped passport to scan your personnel details.

A possible "terrorist attack" may even ban the use of unanimous travel on all public transit and this may not just be Britain. :eek:

Diogenes wrote: »

It's utterly maddening that you refuse to acknowledge this simple and basic flaw in your argument.
Theres an entire thread that debunks the Star piece. If you're really basing your opinion on the Irish Star, you're in trouble out of the gate.

To tell you the truth I would be more concern rd with the EU introducing mandatory vaccines than the Irish Government because I don't think the Irish government would be capable of getting its act together on the matter.

namloc1980

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No Penalties and yet you are charged £4 for a trip paid by cash from Tottinham Court Road to Waterloo while the same trip by Oyster is only £1.50.

Not sure what your point is here. To pay by cash, there has to be someone/machine in the station which costs wages/maintenance to keep. Also there is the cost of managing the cash/coin collected and the cost of transporting cash/coin. I fail to see how you think its a conspiracy that's it's cheaper to pay by prepaid card than by cash! It comes down to cost.....Oyster cards are cheaper to provide/operate than cash/coin....not some conspiracy about mandatory vaccines or travel restrictions!

Diogenes

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Isnt "Freeman" just a fancy word for "Traveller"?

Its nonsense the whole concept of what your suggesting. While you might get away with it if your staying within your own country, im pretty sure you would be looking at a spell banged up until you coped on.

No really it's more nuts than that

http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/introduction.htm

Basically, hand on heart, feel that they have the right to deny government control over themselves and their actions. Simply by denouncing their power over you.

Run_to_da_hills

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not sure what your point is here. To pay by cash, there has to be someone/machine in the station which costs wages/maintenance to keep. Also there is the cost of managing the cash/coin collected and the cost of transporting cash/coin. I fail to see how you think its a conspiracy that's it's cheaper to pay by prepaid card than by cash! It comes down to cost.....Oyster cards are cheaper to provide/operate than cash/coin....not some conspiracy about mandatory vaccines or travel restrictions!

That money should be spread across the board and not used as a carrot to deter there use of those that wish to use conventional tickets.

In time to come Smart cards will make it back in huge savings to the transit companies through massive redundancies. From ticket offices, collectors, vending machine attendants, and security, etc the list goes on.

As you should know you can top smart cards from almost anywhere and even use our little friend.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No Penalties and yet you are charged £4 for a trip paid by cash from Tottinham Court Road to Waterloo while the same trip by Oyster is only £1.50. :rolleyes:Registered Oystercards may even be sold from "touch card" vending machines using your chipped passport to scan your personnel details.

A possible "terrorist attack" may even ban the use of unanimous travel on all public transit and this may not just be Britain. :eek:

Just the operative word here.

To tell you the truth I would be more concern rd with the EU introducing mandatory vaccines than the Irish Government because I don't think the Irish government would be capable of getting its act together on the matter.

And has been conclusively proven theres no mandatory vaccine campaign. Hypothetically if no mandatory vaccine policy occurs, will you consider revising your position.

The list of your hysterical proclamations about the dire effects of the Lisbon treaty that came to nought has been well documented.

Torakx

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm aware of the concept of Freeman. Its nuts. You are still bound by laws of the country you are in. It doesn't matter if you live "off grid" or not.



Yeah DNA, and oh y'know fingerprints, passports and well the entire concept of citizenship all had you before this.

This Freeman stuff is incredibly bizarre and utterly irrational. Theres an idiotic clip on youtube of some chancer trying this in an irish courtroom. He not only had to pay the fine, he spent some time in prison and got an additional penalty for wasting court time.

So apparently stupidity is a crime.

laws only apply when you consent in its many forms.the fact the court presume to that consent or trick people into it is not my fault but maybe the courts and they are probably breaking their law to do so.or at least skirting along the edge.
its not a question of if the freeman way will work but for me more a question of will the law society force humans to give up there freedoms just to be able to eat and put shelter over there heads.
i said before it is not an easy route.i know it is possible and legal to do.just not liked because you are a free human and that is frowned upon.

i still think this is very relevant to the thread.as there are alot of people who will be seriously effected every time these new technologies get implemented.slowly we are losing our freedoms and its sad to see people criticing common foresight,it seems people dont want to face the truth its easier to stick to there present reality instead and look only at whats directly in front of them alone.
alot of things are linked.i am sure this isnt just about making ques go faster.theres always a bigger picture going on.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The 1947 Health Act which includes compulsory vaccinations, quarantine travel bans and this could just be the start of it.

So basically, since 1947, the government could decide to ban you from travelling abroad, unless you had proof that you had this mandatory vaccination.

They coudl do this before the invention of RFID and before the invention of biometric passports.

The only thing that has changed in regard to this ability is that with such systems, if properly implemented, it might be harder to defraud the system.

So unless your objection is that that its now harder to act illegally, I'm not entirey sure why this is a problem

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

laws only apply when you consent in its many forms.

Surely the opposite holds true? Laws are only relevant when you break them, indicating your lack of consent.

I'm curious, though...

If a freeman commits a heinous crime - lets say murder - is your stance that they are not subject to a law which says this is a crime and therefore should be immune from punishment?
Similarly, if the same heinous action is committed against a freeman, is your stance also that this is not a crime, given that the freeman should be due no protection in the eyes of the law?

slowly we are losing our freedoms and its sad to see people criticing common foresight,it seems people dont want to face the truth

I agree that we're losing many freedoms. I just don't agree with a lot of people regarding the implications arising from that.

Diogenes

Torakx wrote: »

laws only apply when you consent in its many forms.the fact the court presume to that consent or trick people into it is not my fault but maybe the courts and they are probably breaking their law to do so.or at least skirting along the edge.

Yeah try breaking the speed limit, or drinking and driving, or trespass, or assaulting someone.

It's not presumed consent. Try travelling to another country and claiming that because they never asked you to consent to the laws that they aren't applicable to you.

its not a question of if the freeman way will work but for me more a question of will the law society force humans to give up there freedoms just to be able to eat and put shelter over there heads.

Exactly what freedoms have you lost. You drive on public roads, you use a subsidised healthcare system. There are streetlights, public services etc...

Freemen of the land seem to be selfish idiots demanding every right without paying for it. I'd dearly like to see a freeman live without 21st century sewage for example.

i said before it is not an easy route.i know it is possible and legal to do.

Really prove it.... I'll give 20 quid to the Santa Strike Force if you can.

just not liked because you are a free human and that is frowned upon.

Run_to_da_hills

bonkey wrote: »

So unless your objection is that that its now harder to act illegally, I'm not entirely sure why this is a problem

Would harboring Jews in the cellar of your house from the Gestapo also be considered illegal?

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Would harboring Jews in the cellar of your house from the Gestapo also be considered illegal?

Would you perhaps have a slightly less hysterical piece of hyperbola? Seeing as the mass round up, and extermination of ethnic groups can't be considered remotely part of any mainstream political parties policies.

Honestly...

worded

Bring it on, I dont care if Im microchipped in fact. Ive nothing to hide.

Imagine how many scammers would be caught that are screwing us all via the dole. Billions saved and many cars full of kids being ferried from country to country to sponge welfare stopped = less of a carbon footprint for them as well!

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Would harboring Jews in the cellar of your house from the Gestapo also be considered illegal?

Why would they need your biometric data for such an absurd scenario anyway?

If a modern day Gestapo wanted to track down Jews in Cellars and Attics theyd do it with Thermal Imaging.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Would harboring Jews in the cellar of your house from the Gestapo also be considered illegal?

I'm sure that under the type of regime you're referring to, it would be illegal (albeit moral) to do so.

As already referenced by Ovreheal, though, I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand how my possession of a biometric passport would affect that in any way....no more then it would make it easier or more difficult for me to engage in any number of less sensationalist illegal activities which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

There is the underlying issue in what you say, of course, that technological advances could be used to further objectionable aims.

Looking at that for a moment, lets consider the humble computer...what you are using to post to this forum. We, the consumers, have funded and driven the development of ever-more powerful computers. Just think of the horrific use they could be put to. Indeed, just think of hte horrific uses they have been put to.

Why, then, do we not spurn computers? Why is it that you are not preaching to us the evil of using a computer?

Indeed, the list is effectively endless. Viewed obliquely enough, there is no technological advancement which we should not be afraid of. After all, even if it is harmless, we're funding companies who are researching (or could research) something less palatable.

And why limit it to technology? Everything with a commercial aspect carries this risk. Almost everything with a social aspect carries this risk.

If we allow ourselves to run wild with what-iffery, we can see how any action is potentially aiding some nlotional despotic plan. Should we live in fear, then, of everything?

I don't believe we should. I don't think you believe we should either. This then begs the question....why is your particular (sensationalist) example worthy of consideration? Why is your (less sensationalist) objection to RFID and biometrics worthy of consideration?

I would argue that if we can't give non-sensationalist answers to such questions, then we should seriously consider that our fears and objections are questionable at best.

Undergod

King Mob wrote: »

There isn't anything in the health act that can bar you from travel.
and there certainly isn't anything about a "vaccination stamp" for your passport.

There are certain countries that require you to have a document (seperate to passport) stating you have gotten vaccinated against Yellow Fever, but Ireland isn't sub-Saharan Africa. This is the closest comparison I can think of, but isn't really all that close...


I think there is cause for concern that liberties are being curtailed and we are becoming easier to track. I don't buy the "If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" argument- I feel privacy is a pretty basic right. I can understand RtdH's concern, up to a point.
That said, I just don't see how these passports make any difference to anything.

rmacm

Undergod wrote: »

There are certain countries that require you to have a document (seperate to passport) stating you have gotten vaccinated against Yellow Fever, but Ireland isn't sub-Saharan Africa. This is the closest comparison I can think of, but isn't really all that close...

Sierra Leone is an example of this. I got a stack of vaccinations for work purposes (I travel a lot). Have a little yellow book that lists them all and if I'm going to a place that requires the yellow fever vaccine it needs to be presented on entry into the country.

Torakx

bonkey wrote: »

I'm sure that under the type of regime you're referring to, it would be illegal (albeit moral) to do so.

As already referenced by Ovreheal, though, I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand how my possession of a biometric passport would affect that in any way....no more then it would make it easier or more difficult for me to engage in any number of less sensationalist illegal activities which have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

There is the underlying issue in what you say, of course, that technological advances could be used to further objectionable aims.

Looking at that for a moment, lets consider the humble computer...what you are using to post to this forum. We, the consumers, have funded and driven the development of ever-more powerful computers. Just think of the horrific use they could be put to. Indeed, just think of hte horrific uses they have been put to.

Why, then, do we not spurn computers? Why is it that you are not preaching to us the evil of using a computer?

Indeed, the list is effectively endless. Viewed obliquely enough, there is no technological advancement which we should not be afraid of. After all, even if it is harmless, we're funding companies who are researching (or could research) something less palatable.

And why limit it to technology? Everything with a commercial aspect carries this risk. Almost everything with a social aspect carries this risk.

If we allow ourselves to run wild with what-iffery, we can see how any action is potentially aiding some nlotional despotic plan. Should we live in fear, then, of everything?

I don't believe we should. I don't think you believe we should either. This then begs the question....why is your particular (sensationalist) example worthy of consideration? Why is your (less sensationalist) objection to RFID and biometrics worthy of consideration?

I would argue that if we can't give non-sensationalist answers to such questions, then we should seriously consider that our fears and objections are questionable at best.

while there are still extremely filthy rich politicians making laws that put poor people on the streets through those laws or effected that way because of those laws and regulations, i would have to say it is stupid to put such technology in there hands.
the elite leaders have shown they do not want or know how to do there job properly and until such time it is irresponsible for us to give children guns if you understand my meaning.

that is why i love to embrace new useful technology but totally shun it in the hands of certain people.
so yes this new technology is very bad,because it may be fine now but it paves the way for more invasive stuff later.we have seen what happened in germany with the nazis and people seem to think "never again" means by saying it on tv once or twice it wont actually ever happen again.....cause we said it? i dont know the reasoning behind that thought.
but i am fairly sure it will happen again.hopefully i will have 20 years or so before that to enjoy life to the fullest

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

that is why i love to embrace new useful technology but totally shun it in the hands of certain people.

You can condemn others use of it, but while you embrace it you are only facilitating its spread.

In effect, you're sending the message that you want this technology to exist, that you want it to be available, but that you think its wrong for those in power to have it at all.

so yes this new technology is very bad

Technology is neither good nor bad. It is how it is used that is the issue.

,because it may be fine now but it paves the way for more invasive stuff later.

Going back to my previous post, this is true of any technology...but unless we're going to denounce modern society totally and embrace Luddism, this argument brings us nowhere.

we have seen what happened in germany with the nazis and people seem to think "never again" means by saying it on tv once or twice it wont actually ever happen again.....cause we said it? i dont know the reasoning behind that thought.

Here's the thing though...we have also seen that what happened in Germany didn't happen because of technology. Technology was neither the root cause nor the root enabler of those atrocities. A lack of technology didn't prevent it from happening, no more then it prevented other genocidal acts.

Encouraging a fear of tecnhnology, then, based on that history, is a logical non-sequitor...especially when we're being selective in what modern technology we want to embrace and what we want to reject. The Nazis used business machines to keep efficient records...but where are the cries that the modern computer is evil because of this?

"I reject like this technology....REMEMBER THE NAZIS".
"I accept this technology...its not important that its a logical successor from technology the Nazis used".

Where's the consistency?

Run_to_da_hills

Overheal wrote: »

If a modern day Gestapo wanted to track down Jews in Cellars and Attics theyd do it with Thermal Imaging.

A roll of good quality Mylar would easily sort that out.

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A roll of good quality Mylar would easily sort that out.

Which, in turn, could be abused for any amount of things, and is therefore evil and to be shunned.

Hobbes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

My concern about these electronic passports is the potential to store / give access to confidential data that could be used against you at a port of entry or within a country. It could be also used by someone in authority that has absolutely no business to know your personal details.

If you have a passport then they already have your details along with a photo in a huge central database.

Torakx

good post bonkey i agree with your ideas also.
i understand this already.
my issue is with the people misusing and abusing power.
if the majority of people do not learn to stop giving dangerous toys to these "kids" then i think it should not be given to mankind at all until they are ready to be responsible for there actions.

so this is why i embrace new technologies for the usefulness they can bring,but also shun them because they will eventually be turned against us.in a way we are feeding the fire.

when i say embrace i mean more like i enjoy and celebrate there uniqueness and efficiency. i dont promote actually giving them out to irresponsible people which is a good 80% of the world at a guess.

so if i had a choice i would force the rulers to work on their ethics before working on furthering technology.

Diogenes

Torakx wrote: »

good post bonkey i agree with your ideas also.
i understand this already.
my issue is with the people misusing and abusing power.
if the majority of people do not learn to stop giving dangerous toys to these "kids" then i think it should not be given to mankind at all until they are ready to be responsible for there actions.

So, er, pretty simple, who decides who uses this technology.

It seems you want greater regulation of technological but don't want anyone to regulate who gets access...

It's a pretty basic paradox.

so this is why i embrace new technologies for the usefulness they can bring,but also shun them because they will eventually be turned against us.in a way we are feeding the fire.

when i say embrace i mean more like i enjoy and celebrate there uniqueness and efficiency. i dont promote actually giving them out to irresponsible people which is a good 80% of the world at a guess.

so if i had a choice i would force the rulers to work on their ethics before working on furthering technology.

And I think everyone would agree that they want their leaders to behave in an ethical manner in all aspects of their policies.

If you're expecting "rulers" to behave piously about technology. Today as I type this, the BBC report 10 million pounds of taxpayer money was was squandered by MPs abusing the expense system.

Asking for your elected representatives to engage in intense moralism over the rolling out of technology when corruption is rampant is absurd.

Torakx

and that is the problem that mankind so far seems unable to keep up spiritually/morally with science.
so i think this new technology is bad for mankind overall.
this is why it is important and imo bad when they introduce all this technology so fast.

in the smaller sence of things to do with passports and airports it might seem unimportant to object.but really mankind is so backward we should not even have technology to hold a blunt instrument

we still act like animals and all this money supposed to improve our lives is actually sending us slowly into oblivion as a small few try desperately through religion,psychology,psychiatry,social studies etc to catch up and mend the social wounds inflicted.

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

and that is the problem that mankind so far seems unable to keep up spiritually/morally with science.

Its not a question of keeping up. Science isn't spiritual or moral...people are.

The problem lies outside science. It lies in human nature.

so i think this new technology is bad for mankind overall.

By your reasoning, though, shouldn't all technology be bad for mankind overall....and yet earlier you admitted to embracing new technology.

Diogenes

Torakx wrote: »

and that is the problem that mankind so far seems unable to keep up spiritually/morally with science.

And the instances were this happens are non existent.

so i think this new technology is bad for mankind overall.
this is why it is important and imo bad when they introduce all this technology so fast.

And in your opinion who should regulate this this technology? You seem to want new technology leaps, but don't want it regulated in case the state abuses it.

From identity theft on, this argument is idiotic..

in the smaller sence of things to do with passports and airports it might seem unimportant to object.but really mankind is so backward we should not even have technology to hold a blunt instrument

I'm sorry the above paragraph doesn't make sense. Are you arguing that you shouldn't even bother to even to try to have any kind of passport control? Or that passport control is so useless that it shouldn't be given extra resources to find criminals and terrorists? Or do you think we need to not have any kind of passport control?

we still act like animals and all this money supposed to improve our lives is actually sending us slowly into oblivion as a small few try desperately through religion,psychology,psychiatry,social studies etc to catch up and mend the social wounds inflicted.

Thats more of concept that isn't relative to security measures.
You're , I think, suggesting that broad profiling is wrong, cause it's wrong. You seem to think that new "technology" is bad, but you don't bother to explain why.

Look cheap flights are bad. Don't **** about.

Your claims are paranoid hysteria.

Run_to_da_hills

rmacm wrote: »

Sierra Leone is an example of this. I got a stack of vaccinations for work purposes (I travel a lot). Have a little yellow book that lists them all and if I'm going to a place that requires the yellow fever vaccine it needs to be presented on entry into the country.

In the near future you could discard that little yellow book because the authorities would have all that data stored in the system which will show up when you "tag" into a country.

Hobbes wrote: »

If you have a passport then they already have your details along with a photo in a huge central database.

I am pretty much aware of that.

On top of that people should also be aware that they are unknowingly feeding this monster the whole time by using their credit, laser, registering their transit smart cards, sending Emails, and text messages. etc. :eek:

Torakx

i personally dont want technology leaps. i would rather all resources went to overthrowing the governments then closing all borders and destroying technology enough that we cannot blow up any other countries or mass destruction...as appose to technology leaps.

why not leave technology like this on a shelf and turn our eyes to the nature of man and why he does such terrible things.
if all people understood themselves and how to understand and control there human nature or feelings maybe we would see a species that is able to take the destructive technology and create a beautiful earth

ps i believe the reason we cannot progress with that plan is that the governments or secret ones may be slowing down our education to maintain dominance over the common man.so its not as simple as teaching kids in school about themselves and emotions etc because first you must let the schools teach it.until progress is not interfered with i dont think there is much choice but to hit the anarchy button and break everything down to start again.