Digital ID's for everyone

4068ac1elhodqr

kippy wrote: »

Digital IDs are badly needed.

Well it's clear they're going to be part of the future (as persistant birth-to-death marks), it's simply a natural progression of standard (and developing) technolgies. A sudden global pandemic only enhances one of the needs.

The big question is not if they are needed, (in many ways they are).

But are people aware of the huge progress and backing towards them, have they been discussed, has a general unified consensus been reached to their acceptance, are people ready and keen to accept them if/when they become manditory.

Cheerful Spring2

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Well it's clear they're going to be part of the future (as persistant birth-to-death marks), it's simply a natural progression of standard (and developing) technolgies. A sudden global pandemic only enhances one of the needs.

The big question is not if they are needed, (in many ways they are).

But are people aware of the huge progress and backing towards them, have they been discussed, has a general unified consensus been reached to their acceptance, are people ready and keen to accept them if/when they become manditory.

The verification process is described in the ID2020 Tech spec sheet.


I grasp your point of view around this topic.

For the discussion here. I don't see an English sentence highlighting the vaccine digital marker is to be rolled out during the introductory stage of ID2020. You should wait for more information.

The refer to biometrics and cryptographics. Invisible tattoo with biometric data be inserted on the body be something they might do in the future sure. id2020 does say that's coming soon on the website.

 Gates in the AMA on Reddit said digital certification. I feel he talking about a vaccine cert provided by your doctor, then carry on your phone?

This forum is a place for speculation. Sometimes i think debunkers forget that.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This forum is a place for speculation.

Fantasist fiction mostly

Alternative facts, alternative history, alternative science - it's typically a sluice for all that

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fantasist fiction mostly

Alternative facts, alternative history, alternative science - it's typically a sluice for all that

Boards ie has hundreds of threads about different subjects and yet you spend your time here debating conspiracy theories.

There is a history and science forum for you to post at.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Boards ie has hundreds of threads about different subjects and yet you spend your time here debating conspiracy theories.

There is a history and science forum for you to post at.

Sure, and if someone posts fake or imagined information on the history or science forum, you'll quickly find people there will rapidly expose it

It's bizarre to celebrate spurious info

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sure, and if someone posts fake or imagined information on the history or science forum, you'll quickly find people there will rapidly expose it

It's bizarre to celebrate spurious info

This is not a mainstream history or science forum. You keep forgetting where you are

You keep referring to these sites, where people would agree with you. Go there then and post your thoughts.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This is not a mainstream history or science forum. You keep forgetting where you are

You keep referring to these sites, where people would agree with you. Go there then and post your thoughts.

It's a public forum, if people want to post their opinions and conspiracies, that's perfectly fine.

It's also perfectly fine if other people want to ask questions or point out flaws. Especially if the original poster is stating their extraordinary opinion as fact, when it clearly isn't.

If the free speech aspect of that bothers individuals here, they should seek echo chambers elsewhere, there are more than a few conspiracy forums on the net with conspiracy-minded mods who are more than willing to regularly ban or silence people who ask questions about the theories, or you know, ask for evidence of them

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a public forum, if people want to post their opinions and conspiracies, that's perfectly fine.

It's also perfectly fine if other people want to ask questions or point out flaws. Especially if the original poster is stating their extraordinary opinion as fact, when it clearly isn't.

If the free speech aspect of that bothers individuals here, they should seek echo chambers elsewhere, there are more than a few conspiracy forums on the net with conspiracy-minded mods who are more than willing to regularly ban or silence people who ask questions about the theories, or you know, ask for evidence of them

You don’t trust any new evidence that not backed by the official version!  You only accept evidence that you understand to be correct and right. 9/11 is a a perfect example of this. You gentlemen constantly ignore what the alternative side says about the events on 9/11. Go on continue to believe you're on the right side of history and believe,we already know the true facts, and rest of us are stupid to think anything else happened that day.

I am not against free speech and your right to post here. Every day, you complain and rant about conspiracies are a waste of time. I just curious why you bother? You post links to psychology papers that discuss conspiracy theorists, but maybe there needs to be papers about Skeptics?

4068ac1elhodqr

Let's not start the 9/11, that deserves it's own thread somewhere else, and unlikely to reach any real conclusion anyway.

Agree however with CSpring2, yes there are small handful of lads that survey the entire CT, that are 24/7, days, weeks, years or even decades in a state of 99.9% perma-denial.
You could say they're full-time relentless debunkers, either fully 'occupied' hobbyists
....or a CT in itself perhaps could be that they are in some other 'occupational capacity' told to sing to a certain (athiest) hymn sheet.
Either that or it's a weird hobby to shut down and derail/divert every single CT.
Each to their own, lol.

---

Back on topic in reply to CS2 (re:vaccine digital marker is to be rolled out during the introductory stage).
Don't see this entirely (although possible), the various technologies haven't been nailed down enough yet, still somewhat experimental.
The id2020.org aim is stated initally for the 1.5bn without ID (not the 'West'), and a new DigitalID platform (combined at time of vaccine).
A vaccine to the entire world (as Gates wants) would be what 18mths+ minimum away.

Closely related to their and BGates other projects, is a seperate and actual in-body, proper full microchip implant, but for controlling fertility.
This one harks back to 2014 (hard to believe), but avails of the same MIT Team that Gates funds, could post a link but it reads as too unbelivable to be true.
Will have to re-read it again, as the story comes from the (un)common peoples favourite: the Guardian. Basically it's a can of worms if true.

Cheerful Spring2

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Let's not start the 9/11, that deserves it's own thread somewhere else, and unlikely to reach any real conclusion anyway.

Agree however with CSpring2, yes there are small handful of lads that survey the entire CT, that are 24/7, days, weeks, years or even decades in a state of 99.9% perma-denial.
You could say they're full-time relentless debunkers, either fully 'occupied' hobbyists
....or a CT in itself perhaps could be that they are in some other 'occupational capacity' told to sing to a certain (athiest) hymn sheet.
Either that or it's a weird hobby to shut down and derail/divert every single CT.
Each to their own, lol.

---

Back on topic in reply to CS2 (re:vaccine digital marker is to be rolled out during the introductory stage).
Don't see this entirely (although possible), the various technologies haven't been nailed down enough yet, still somewhat experimental.
The id2020.org aim is stated initally for the 1.5bn without ID (not the 'West'), and a new DigitalID platform (combined at time of vaccine).
A vaccine to the entire world (as Gates wants) would be what 18mths+ minimum away.

Closely related to their and BGates other projects, is a seperate and actual in-body, proper full microchip implant, but for controlling fertility.
This one harks back to 2014 (hard to believe), but avails of the same MIT Team that Gates funds, could post a link but it reads as too unbelivable to be true.
Will have to re-read it again, as the story comes from the (un)common peoples favourite: the Guardian. Basically it's a can of worms if true.

There is a sub forum on 9/11.
I just highlighting Dohnjoe does not recognize any new evidence when not approved by the mainstream organisations and bodies. 
He only acknowledges the US government version of events about 9/11 and JFK. Anyone who steps outside this norm is wrong!
Like you added, not 9/11 thread. Highlighting his state of mind and how he positions himself before posting is important to highlight.
I know i am conspiracy theorist and that's known!

Are the correct in maintaining ID2020 does not mention vaccine digital markers. Yes lets be honest they’re right!
It doesn’t rule out that maybe will be adopted as a technology in the future.

Problem right your posts read like science fiction! For most people there thinking is the here and now. I don’t rule it out as a possible AI/ Human tech advancement that may be common in 30 years from now, or 50 years from now?

4068ac1elhodqr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Are the correct in maintaining ID2020 does not mention vaccine digital markers. Yes lets be honest they’re right!
It doesn’t rule out that maybe will be adopted as a technology in the future.

As above (id2020 Press Release of Pakistan project*), and others {Everest, MyPass, iRespond and so on), their various alliance suported pilot schemes and (private/public) partnerships such as GatesFoundation/Gavi (they operate under a huge umberella) are very keen to combine vaccines with DigitalIDs.

*The Bangladesh state were keen to roll out at birth/immunisation vaccines as the platform for 'persistant biometrically linked DigitalIDs':
Recognizing the opportunity for immunization to serve as a platform for digital identity, this program leverages existing vaccination and birth registration operations to offer newborns a persistent and portable biometrically-linked digital identity.
...the design of digital identity systems carries far-reaching implications for individuals' access to services and livelihoods.... To offer a persistent digital identity from birth, the program will explore and assess several cutting-edge infant biometric technologies,

Digital markers are fairly new, a 'cutting-edge biometric technology' for exploration (with increases of data storage planned in next versions)
In terms of what can be done in the future, may as well take a look back at past (2014) of similar projects also via the Gates MIT funded team.
Now this one is for 'Fertility control' using an actual embedded proper microchip to control in-body (hormone reservoirs).

Cue the Twilight Zone music:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018

One way to manage over-population eh? The (uncommon) people's favourte: 'the Guardian' hints in the story at 'subversive family planning' (might they mean a potential steralisation risk also?) as a passing remark. Real can o' worms stuff sci-fi stuff.

Cheerful Spring2

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

As above (id2020 Press Release of Pakistan project*), and others {Everest, MyPass, iRespond and so on), their various alliance suported pilot schemes and (private/public) partnerships such as GatesFoundation/Gavi (they operate under a huge umberella) are very keen to combine vaccines with DigitalIDs.

*The Bangladesh state were keen to roll out at birth/immunisation vaccines as the platform for 'persistant biometrically linked DigitalIDs':
Recognizing the opportunity for immunization to serve as a platform for digital identity, this program leverages existing vaccination and birth registration operations to offer newborns a persistent and portable biometrically-linked digital identity.
...the design of digital identity systems carries far-reaching implications for individuals' access to services and livelihoods.... To offer a persistent digital identity from birth, the program will explore and assess several cutting-edge infant biometric technologies,

Digital markers are fairly new, a 'cutting-edge biometric technology' for exploration (with increases of data storage planned in next versions)
In terms of what can be done in the future, may as well take a look back at past (2014) of similar projects also via the Gates MIT funded team.
Now this one is for 'Fertility control' using an actual embedded proper microchip to control in-body (hormone reservoirs).

Cue the Twilight Zone music:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018

One way to manage over-population eh? The (uncommon) people's favourte: 'the Guardian' hints in the story at 'subversive family planning' (might they mean a potential steralisation risk also?) as a passing remark. Real can o' worms stuff sci-fi stuff.

I have not done the research. Very difficult, to provide honest replies to everything, you just posted here.

I just read some of the thread the other day, and looked up info about ID2020 and digital vaccine markers and provided info about what i found.

Kehlani Massive Magnum

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

It's a (BGates) funded project aimed towards his specific brief (vaccine tracking via a data mark on the body), ideally to function as a permanent mark.

it's (currently) valid for 5yrs persistance on skin under direct sunlight. If you think the MIT Team have closed the book on it or haven't got further views to enhance the persitance level, reckon this is very misguided and blinded thinking, considering a chap that just spend $48m on another house last week, may write them another cheque.

But as you've been shown, fingerprint scans can be valid for up to ten years.
Also fingerprint scans would be biometric, which they actually say they want.

Your method is not biometric and it is not as persistent as actual biometrics.
Further, it can be removed or interfered with.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

And again if you're in denial that id2020.org has any connection to both vaccine programes and DigitalIDs: also misguided and/or in denial.

You keep forgetting Microsoft of which Bill sat on the board (until COVID March 2020), are the founding partners of id2020.org. Yes, that's their logo right beside the Rockerfellas and the Gavi Vaccine Alliance on https://id2020.org/alliance

So that's all the connection you have?
Microsoft's logo is on the website, therefore it's a plot to have chips implanted in everyone? Lol

Where on the website you keep linking does it say any of the stuff you are claiming?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

This is a new level of falsehood. An infrared scanner does not involve any direct contact.

Sure, ideally, but that's not how it's going to work in reality.
Such a device is still going to need to be close to the scannee, and a lot of the time, they're going to touch it either by accident or to ensure that it's actually close enough.
For me, when I use my contactless public transport card, I touch the scanner a lot.

I would probably do this less if I knew that people were running their gross hands over the scanner rather than their cards.
Doubly so if the bible is as accurate as you claim and they have to use their foreheads too.

patnor1011

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Well that's what it says on the tin, have you even bothered to read any of the latest delivery conception? (which not by any means is the final solution).



As far as the use or non-use of this ID, this part is somewhat speculation, however using the current standards of paper/card ID, you can't drive/fly/vote/work without having it.

Digital ID is simply going to be the next 'standard'. Far more reliable too, only those with their eyesclosed would fail to spot this.

And yet with current standard it is still easy to deny someone travel, driving, work, bank account...
How much easier it will be with something like what is proposed I wonder...
Click of a mouse?
Not to mention the total and absolute loss of privacy.

patnor1011

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you have an issue with my posts report them to the mods. I was merely responding to your claim that many people say they will reject any vaccine for covd19. a claim you refuse to substantiate.

Many people will refuse covid vaccine. Read about sars vaccine fiasco which was similarly rushed. Similar stuff happened with swine flu vaccine.
The fastest you can develop one is 3-5 years and even that is considered rushed science by some scientists.
Not to mention that current covid vaccine chase is absolute craze with companies trying to secure biggest share of potential market.

patnor1011

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some individuals seem to have this delusion and fixation that the authorities or "powers-that-be" want to digitally "mark" us in some mandatory way for nefarious reasons, either via microchip, RFID, digital ID/tattoo, etc

If you were a little more up the ladder you would know that this is the absolute wet dream of various government agencies and departments.
Not only to know who you are, where you are and what you do.
Not only governments, they are just a tools of various corporations anyway - if you missed cambridge analytica scandal you should know that all I listed of what they want to know is the ultimate tool for them to be able to predict what you are going to do.
This is not conspiracy theory. This is the way government function and govern people. Always did, and this is how they are trying to perfect it to the point nobody can escape.

4068ac1elhodqr

King Mob wrote: »

But as you've been shown, fingerprint scans can be valid for up to ten years.

Eh? have not mentioned this.
Besides they want (new) birth-to-death persistant methods, a newborn fingerprint isn't an idea starting point, thus invalid and already rejected by them, they also reject all current paper/plastic national ID cards, as it also does not meet the brief.

King Mob wrote: »

Also fingerprint scans would be biometric, which they actually say they want.

Incorrect again, they (id2020.org) reject all current standards, thus the empahsis and funding is on new, unique and innovative technological novel approaches: to the issue of creating new DigitalIDs. At very best iris/fingerprints would be only be secondary or supplimentary.

This early concept (QuantumDotTatoo) is an in/under/embedded skin level marker (beyond wearables), you can argue about if it's a biometric measurement. If anything it's beyond and enhanced of any biometric level, and a truely uniqe blockchain verified identifier. The brief was for birth-to-death persistant levels, so it will evolve from current 5yrs (at very early test), to 100yrs in future generations.

King Mob wrote: »

Your method is not biometric and it is not as persistent as actual biometrics.
Further, it can be removed or interfered with.

Not mine, and it's actually beyond biometrics, it (the mark/implant) becomes part of the body with ultimate aim for persistance (i.e. birth to death) as per brief.

Ever try to extract a vaccine, or extract a near nano-level microneedle quantum dot tattoo, (a semi-conductive infusion of copper and polymer). You'd need a sharp scaple. Would be much easier to acid off fingertips, wear contact lenses, or inject minute levels of ink into the Iris. You'd likely also be charged (in the future) with interferance of manditory birth/vaccine issued DigitalID, and this experience denial of services.

King Mob wrote: »

it's a plot to have chips implanted in everyone? Lol

You have been corrected on this 'clear falsehood' dozens of times now lol. Passive RFID/NFC/NDT/QRC are not 'microchip processors', welcome to Science101.

King Mob wrote: »

Sure, ideally, but that's not how it's going to work in reality.
Such a device is still going to need to be close to the scannee, and a lot of the time, they're going to touch it either by accident or to ensure that it's actually close enough.

Jibberish.

King Mob wrote: »

For me, when I use my contactless public transport card, I touch the scanner a lot.

You're clearly doing the 'CONTACTLESS' process wrong, seek help.

An infrared mark (QDT) is actually better compared to a supermarket (iRed) barcode scanner, and will work at a significant distance, (like QRCode also). You repeated suggestion of infrared contactless scanner involving rubbing of hands on surfaces is again an uneducated falsehood.

Cheerful Spring2

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Not mine, and it's actually beyond biometrics, it (the mark/implant) becomes part of the body with ultimate aim for persistance (i.e. birth to death) as per brief.

Bio (Biology) Metric ( a standard of measuring or evaluation of something) It not wrong to claim we may have human biometric microchipping in the future. They may call it a different name if it ever comes out.

Dohnjoe

patnor1011 wrote: »

If you were a little more up the ladder you would know that this is the absolute wet dream of various government agencies and departments.
Not only to know who you are, where you are and what you do.

Not only governments, they are just a tools of various corporations anyway - if you missed cambridge analytica scandal you should know that all I listed of what they want to know is the ultimate tool for them to be able to predict what you are going to do.
This is not conspiracy theory. This is the way government function and govern people. Always did, and this is how they are trying to perfect it to the point nobody can escape.

It's a lazy vague world view we've all heard countless times before

4068ac1elhodqr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Bio (Biology) Metric ( a standard of measuring or evaluation of something) It not wrong to claim we may have human biometric microchipping in the future. They may call it a different name if it ever comes out.

Biometric Microchip will store "biological data, your unique fingerprints, your dna, data about your eyes, stuff like that.

In essence yes, it's an (enhanced) unique bodily based measurement if anything. Most likely a 'Unique Identifier' (like a serial number tattoo) will be issued at birth (or other vaccine process), and persist until death (persitant requirement).

The data.string may well contain all natural available biometrics, as well as it's own unique DigitalID. But as it's designed(pushed) to function also as a vaccine{date/time/vers} and health record, the (semi-conductive) mark should ideally also have the ability to have a blockchain secure 'write' as well as default 'read' function.

The implications are wide ranging, the most immediate would be funtion of a digital wallet and global identifier.

These two alone would render millions (or billions) without a job. You could walk off a plane, do the duty free shopping, get on a bus all without any human interaction/conversation whatsoever. Tax returns (and evasion) would also be a thing of the past.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You don’t trust any new evidence that not backed by the official version! 

People who subscribe heavily to conspiracy theories often have a distrust/paranoia of authority. As such they don't always process information in a normal objective/rational way

Government/media/experts claim X, some kook on the internet claims Y. These types of people often gravitate towards Y because it satisfies their world view/distrust of authority rather than a grim truth which contradicts their beliefs

Psychologists have conducted many studies and written many articles on individuals who are susceptible to this kind of thinking.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

People who subscribe heavily to conspiracy theories often have a distrust/paranoia of authority. As such they don't always process information in a normal objective/rational way

Government/media/experts claim X, some kook on the internet claims Y. These types of people often gravitate towards Y because it satisfies their world view/distrust of authority rather than a grim truth which contradicts their beliefs

Psychologists have conducted many studies and written many articles on individuals who are susceptible to this kind of thinking.

But you forgetting here is the conspiracies involve cover-ups inside the US. 95 per cent of it at least. I don't trust the alphabet intelligence agencies, inside the US are telling the world the whole truth. Society has accepted their views about 9/11 and JFK and just wrong for people to do that. The official media is the intelligence agencies best friend. We known for years the CIA worked with them to change narratives and hide facts from the public.

4068ac1elhodqr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

9/11 and JFK

Wrong thread, this is DigitalIDs.

Also it's beyond any singlular state as implied (as also is BGates, WHO or id2020). Currently places such as Bangladesh and Pakistan have welcomed various pilot funded trials, they even ran a program of issuing newborns a RFID necklace, for purposes of tracking and digital based identity.

Way back circa 2014 Gates funded (same MIT team) an actual (proper micropchip), fully implant, way beyond the scope of basic QDT/RFID/Scanables. This used an inserted remote hormone store (16yrs worth) to feed birth control to the female, birth/population control type stuff...

Also as far back 2008, Jim Mielke (engineer) demonstrated proof of concept of a bloodflow powered device (converts glucose and oxygen to electricity), bluetooth and mobile capable... the future sure is fascinating.

Anyway time for sunshine outdoors, whilst it's still allowed in the lockdown.

Cheerful Spring2

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Wrong thread, this is DigitalIDs.

It not a deep dive conversation about these topics. Just pointing out why I don’t trust the official narratives, especially when there is new evidence disputing it.. 
When it’s the same deep state party that lied about the Iraqi war after 9/11, everyone should think more about the official story about 9/11

I take your point and not a thread for these topics.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

But you forgetting here is the conspiracies involve cover-ups inside the US. 95 per cent of it at least. I don't trust the alphabet intelligence agencies, inside the US are telling the world the whole truth. Society has accepted their views about 9/11 and JFK and just wrong for people to do that. The official media is the intelligence agencies best friend. We known for years the CIA worked with them to change narratives and hide facts from the public.

Academia, the media, intelligence agencies, official investigations, experts, recorded history, etc, etc - you constantly trash them in order to validate your extreme beliefs

Extreme beliefs such as "secret Nazi's" killed JFK and pulled off 911 as an inside job

The ironic part is that you will label e.g. Sandy Hook truthers are morons and idiots, and they literally use the same techniques you do to validate their own brand of nonsense

A hobby of validating nonsense, whether it's a belief that digital ID's are a biblical "mark of the beast" or the moon landings were a hoax, it's the same faulty thinking underpinning these fringe views

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Academia, the media, intelligence agencies, official investigations, experts, recorded history, etc, etc - you constantly trash them in order to validate your extreme beliefs

Extreme beliefs such as "secret Nazi's" killed JFK and pulled off 911 as an inside job

The ironic part is that you will label e.g. Sandy Hook truthers are morons and idiots, and they literally use the same techniques you do to validate their own brand of nonsense

A hobby of validating nonsense, whether it's a belief that digital ID's are a biblical "mark of the beast" or the moon landings were a hoax, it's the same faulty thinking underpinning both.

If you have not noticed the American way influences everything. That includes Academia, official investigations, media and rest you noted.The global system is set up that way to not doubt the offical narratives. If you step outside the norm you will be crushed. Why do you think Facebook and Youtube changed policies around censorship. The US government threatened to sanction them, they told the social media sites to crack down on narratives that dispute the official line policy.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

That includes Academia, official investigations, media and rest you noted.

You keep trying to paint academics, scientists, historians, investigators, researchers, experts, etc, you name it, as some sort of homogenous entity that blindly accepts "official" information

You've created that (false) notion in your head the same way you create your fantastical theories

That's because it's the only way you can support those extreme and irrational beliefs. Everything is magically and conveniently controlled

So if you come across someone on this forum with these absurd notions of Digital ID being a "mark of the beast" or whatever, you may not agree with it, but you see them as a potential validator of your extreme beliefs. And unite against common enemies: reason and logic

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You keep trying to paint academics, scientists, historians, investigators, researchers, experts, etc, you name it, as some sort of homogenous entity that blindly accepts "official" information

You've created that (false) notion in your head the same way you create your fantastical theories

That's because it's the only way you can support those extreme and irrational beliefs. Everything is magically and conveniently controlled

How they get all this stuff though? They receive the info from intelligence agencies in the US. You seem to think investigators travelled to the remote parts of Pakistan and interviewed the people involved. Anyone who linked to the 9/11 attack is now in a black site prison and not allowed to talk about it. The narrative is controlled and the official media only broadcasts their position.

Kehlani Massive Magnum

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Eh? have not mentioned this.

It's been shown to you before. Fingerprint readers we use now can still read fingerprints ten years later.
If you are positing that technology for other things can improve, then it can improve here too.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Besides they want (new) birth-to-death persistant methods, a newborn fingerprint isn't an idea starting point, thus invalid and already rejected by them,

And you're method can't be used on new borns either, thus they must reject it too. (If they actually were looking into such technologies and wished to use them, which you've failed to actually show.)

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

they also reject all current paper/plastic national ID cards, as it also does not meet the brief.

Yes, because they are different things that contain different information for different reasons.

It has no bearing on my point.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

At very best iris/fingerprints would be only be secondary or supplimentary.

According to...?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

you can argue about if it's a biometric measurement.

beyond biometrics,

Your method isn't biometrics. They are looking for biometrics. Otherwise, why do they keep mentioning it?
Why have you stopped mentioning it when you repeat the long list of things they supposedly want?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Ever try to extract a vaccine, or extract a near nano-level microneedle quantum dot tattoo, (a semi-conductive infusion of copper and polymer). You'd need a sharp scaple.

An RFID tag of any variety can be stopped very easily. We can do this now very cheaply.
Further, such a thing can be much more easily faked than a fingerprint or iris scan.

Also, you are aware that vaccines don't remain in the body forever, right?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Would be much easier to acid off fingertips,

Then you can't use any of the things that require fingertips and the authorities would still be easily able to identify you.
If it's easy to scrape of your finger tips, you can also remove your implanted tatoo.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

wear contact lenses, or inject minute levels of ink into the Iris.

Neither of which would fool retinal scans and would be a dead give away.

Both of these points are doubled if they use a combination of iris, fingerprint and other biometric identifiers.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You'd likely also be charged (in the future) with interferance of manditory birth/vaccine issued DigitalID, and this experience denial of services.

And same made up fantasy scenario with no link to reality can be applied to those interfere with their fingerprints etc.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You have been corrected on this 'clear falsehood' dozens of times now lol. Passive RFID/NFC/NDT/QRC are not 'microchip processors', welcome to Science101.

Ok. In that case:
it's a plot to have Passive RFID/NFC/NDT/QRC implanted in everyone? Lol

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Jibberish.

Which part had you issue understanding?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You're clearly doing the 'CONTACTLESS' process wrong, seek help.

Sure, me and a large percentage of people who also use it that way.
Same with barcode readers in shops. The person at the counter doesn't technically have to touch the product to the scanner for it to work, yet...

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You repeated suggestion of infrared contactless scanner involving rubbing of hands on surfaces is again an uneducated falsehood.

I never said that. You're misrepresenting my position.

I did however point out that in your claims, people would also be using their head as the Bible says the mark would be in both the palm and the head.
So why did you cut that part out? Do you now disagree with the bible's prophesy?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How they get all this stuff though?

I genuinely don't think you understand how research or investigation works, for example name one history or science book you've ever read cover to cover..