Digital ID's for everyone

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

none of that relatedes to portability. most people have their phones welded to them.

Mobile phones are wholly unreliable for digital certificates as was explained to you already, they simple fill a temporary gap until better technologies (often funded by BillGates) become available.
A mobile becomes very quickly useless without power, and has a host of issues.

Portable is only one (secondary) requirement of id2020.org, for DigitalIDs.
More important, is the concept of birth-to-death 'Persistant'.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

People with very little technical knowledge are (again) simply confusing the term 'microchip' with what is passive embedded biometric digital IDs.

For the Xxxxth time, NFC/RFID and even the latest model of quantum dot tattoos (funded by BillGates) are not microchips.
It's a simple misunderstanding, but these technologies can behave in a somewhat similar, but more limited fashion.

You still haven't provided any proof that the intent is nfc tattoos or whatever. Eg nfc technology can simply be on a card or a sticker. So getting nfc tattoos or whatever is more likely to put people off getting it tbh.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Mobile phones are wholly unreliable for digital certificates as was explained to you already, they simple fill a temporary gap until better technologies (often funded by BillGates) become available.

Portable is only one (secondary) requirement of id2020.org, for DigitalIDs.
More important, is the concept of birth-to-death 'Persistant'.

i was specfically pointing out that your claim that mobile phones are not truly portable was nonsense. and portability is a main requirement for any digital id. if a digital id is not portable then it is useless.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are the ones making the claim abut microchipping.

Tech paper for ID2000 says biometrics.

The problem right how is trying to identify what form this would take in the real world. It sounds to me it be biometric ID card, and not a chip in the body?

Before you receive the card, you may have to give fingerprints, eye scan, facial and body movements, stuff like that can't be cheated.

My guess it is a global ID card to identify a person is who they say they are!

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Tech paper for ID2000 says biometrics.

The problem right how is trying to identify what form this would take in the real world. It sounds to me it be biometric ID card, and not a chip in the body?

Before you receive the card, you may have to give fingerprints, eye scan, facial and body movements, stuff like that can't be cheated.

My guess it is a global ID card to identify a person is who they say they are!

your mate clarence specifically said microchipping so you need to take that up with them.

Deleted User wrote: »

You still haven't provided any proof that the intent is nfc tattoos or whatever. Eg nfc technology can simply be on a card or a sticker. So getting nfc tattoos or whatever is more likely to put people off getting it tbh.

Maybe you're behind with the news, but didn't Bill Gates not request (and fund) better tracking (excluding simple mobile phones) of vaccines i.e.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the (quantum dot tattoo) team's research, which was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine on Wednesday.

https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record
It's a digital mark on the person, with future data storage capabilities i.e. Digital ID.

"It's possible someday that this 'invisible' approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications... particularly in the developing world," MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said in the statement.

Dohnjoe

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Maybe you're behind with the news, but didn't Bill Gates not request (and fund) better tracking (excluding simple mobile phones) of vaccines i.e.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the (quantum dot tattoo) team's research, which was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine on Wednesday.

https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record
It's a digital mark on the person, with future data storage capabilities i.e. Digital ID.

"It's possible someday that this 'invisible' approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications... particularly in the developing world," MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said in the statement.

Don't your concerns about this technology boil down to the fact that you think all of this is somehow mentioned in the bible and is "the mark of the beast"?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Mobile phones are wholly unreliable for digital certificates as was explained to you already, they simple fill a temporary gap until better technologies (often funded by BillGates) become available.
A mobile becomes very quickly useless without power, and has a host of issues.

Portable is only one (secondary) requirement of id2020.org, for DigitalIDs.
More important, is the concept of birth-to-death 'Persistant'.

But none of the technologies you keep pointing to are persistent.

Nor are they Biometric, which is a major point you keep quoting...

And again none of those technologies are mentioned on the site you keep linking...

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Maybe you're behind with the news, but didn't Bill Gates not request (and fund) better tracking (excluding simple mobile phones) of vaccines i.e.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the (quantum dot tattoo) team's research, which was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine on Wednesday.

https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record
It's a digital mark on the person, with future data storage capabilities i.e. Digital ID.

"It's possible someday that this 'invisible' approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications... particularly in the developing world," MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said in the statement.

I read your links and understand now why you think this. Tattoo wrong word to describe this, it not visible to the naked eye.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Don't your concerns about this technology boil down to the fact that you think all of this is somehow mentioned in the bible and is "the mark of the beast"?

That's an interesting angle that you bring up and highlight.

King Mob wrote: »

But none of the technologies you keep pointing to are persistent. Nor are they Biometric, which is a major point you keep quoting...

If you receive an implant or mark at birth (or at time of vaccine), then yes that becomes a (new) additional point of biometric data. {statistical analysis to biological data}.

Also if this mark or RFID type quantum-dot tattoo can store data, it can also be programmed pre-entry with other cumulative biometric data including prints, iris or medical data.

Indeed it's sole purpose is to store data which was BillGate's request, e.g. to carry the date, time and details of a vaccine as a digital record. And the MIT lads who made the QDT have similar programs that use RFID vaccine records as 'wearables', if they can combine the two: ...bingo.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I read your links and understand now why you think this. Tattoo wrong word to describe this, it not visible to the naked eye.

Irrelevant point.
It used microneedles, it functions as a tattoo.

You can already get UV tattoos which glow under certain light condtions.
This one simply used iRed light (most cameras can see infrared anyway), many smartphones can broadcast this light to operate as tv controls.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Irrelevant point.
It used microneedles, it functions as a tattoo.

You can already get UV tattoos which glow under certain light condtions.
This one simply used iRed light (most cameras can see infrared anyway), many smartphones can broadcast this light to operate as tv controls.

Under the skin that nobody can see.
What you wrote is true.
I looked at the evidence unlike some on here.
I still not getting is the digital marker harmful or is it useful for medical purposes? Expand your thoughts on this.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Maybe you're behind with the news, but didn't Bill Gates not request (and fund) better tracking (excluding simple mobile phones) of vaccines i.e.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded the (quantum dot tattoo) team's research, which was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine on Wednesday.

https://bioengineering.rice.edu/news/quantum-dot-tattoos-hold-vaccination-record
It's a digital mark on the person, with future data storage capabilities i.e. Digital ID.

"It's possible someday that this 'invisible' approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications... particularly in the developing world," MIT professor and senior author Robert Langer said in the statement.

Well firstly, the quantum for tattoo is only supposed to act as a marker to indicate a vaccination has occurred. The technology realistically cannot carry a lot of information so it's not some elaborate mine of data.

Id2020 doesn't appear to have chosen any technology. They've funded some pilot projects that tend to use qr codes at the moment. Iris recognition or fingerprints may be used but ultimately the information about individuals will be stored on the cloud. Not in physical implants or tattoos.

So yep entirely up to date with the news but you're reading far too much into your mark of the beast.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Under the skin that nobody can see.
What you wrote is true.
I looked at the evidence unlike some on here.
I still not getting is the digital marker harmful or is it useful for medical purposes? Expand your thoughts on this.

Again having to over simplify things... the objective push of global and persistant unique DigitalIDs is becoming inevitable (for a range of purposes), by many groups such as BillGates (using vaccine tracking as his need) and indeed id2020.org

We can all agree on this, yes?

The next question, is one of 'whether or not this is a good thing or not'.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Under the skin that nobody can see.
What you wrote is true.
I looked at the evidence unlike some on here.
I still not getting is the digital marker harmful or is it useful for medical purposes? Expand your thoughts and explain your concerns.

his concerns relate to the "mark of the beast" mentioned in the bible.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his concerns relate to the "mark of the beast" mentioned in the bible.

666 is the mark of the beast in the bible.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

666 is the mark of the beast in the bible.

that is only part of it.

Revelation 13:16

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,

Revelation 13:16-18

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well firstly, the quantum for tattoo is only supposed to act as a marker to indicate a vaccination has occurred. The technology realistically cannot carry a lot of information so it's not some elaborate mine of data.

But (agreed) it can carry (some) data, it's a readable data point, that become biometric when marked on the person.
Also the team that made it want to expand upon the amount data storage, in future improvements of it, an expected natural aspiration.
The team also avail of RFID vaccine programs (wearables) but know the limitations of such

Deleted User wrote: »

Id2020 doesn't appear to have chosen any technology. They've funded some pilot projects that tend to use qr codes at the moment. Iris recognition or fingerprints may be used but ultimately the information about individuals will be stored on the cloud. Not in physical implants or tattoos

It uses/looks at what's currently available, but more importantly...
It also states that 'all current biometric measurements' are unsuitable. It also rejects paper and card (including national ID/Passport cards). It's main funding and push is towards 'new', 'novel', and 'unique' technologies.

Either those in infancy (blockchain, as is mentioned and supported for encryption). Or funding towards newly sourced and discovered e.g. QDT types that can be combined with vaccines.

Deleted User wrote: »

So yep entirely up to date with the news but you're reading far too much into your mark of the beast.

The other chap, and now you are the only ones to recently mention the mark of the beast.

I can however see your association to this, in regards of the ability to buy or sell goods with a body mark of some sort.

Certainly this new DigitalID would support such a function in the future, there is no question about that, given the nature of it (secure, truely portable, unique biometric, blockchain supported, always-on, persistant from birth to death) etc.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

his concerns relate to the "mark of the beast" mentioned in the bible.

Not a concern, its a concern of yours clearly.
Simple an acknowledgement of the similarities.

So...

The question reverts to the uses of DigitalIDs.
Can/Will it be used for buying/selling: Perhaps, don't see why not?

Other used could include access to education, voting, employment, welfare and so on....

But it makes zero sense for any significant amount of data to be stored on one's skin. Data in general is prone to corruption, skin gets damaged on a constant basis. Everything from sun damage to scratches, that makes it pretty useless for biometric tattoos to act as storage containers of any notable amount of info.

Dohnjoe

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

That's an interesting angle that you bring up and highlight.

Look up Microsoft's patent "666" (real number WO2020060606) if you want to get freaked out

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is only part of it.

Revelation 13:16

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,

Revelation 13:16-18 [/

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.

If it just for medicinal record keeping, I don’t think we have to be concerned right now?
I can see the issues, if it was adopted for banking and credit scoring. Will obviously lead to no paper cash society. Personally i like having cash on hand.
You whole life could be controlled by someone else potentially. Right now you have to be careful claiming this the mark of the beast. Are you claiming these people are followers of Satan?

Deleted User wrote: »

But it makes zero sense for any significant amount of data to be stored on one's skin. Data in general is prone to corruption, skin gets damaged on a constant basis. Everything from sun damage to scratches, that makes it pretty useless for biometric tattoos to act as storage containers of any notable amount of info.

Might be a poor comparison, but it made excellent sense for some during WW2 to tattoo/mark/stamp a unique serial number on some folks they captured, to keep a track of.

The QDT was already tested in skin exposed to sunlight for 5yrs (cadaver and pigskin), and it withheld it's data. This is also only the 1st gen, smaller needles means more and better storage capability.

A vaccine (data combo) delivered this way does not require refrigeration so has benefits over the current method.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If it just for medicinal record keeping, I don’t think we have to be concerned right now?
I can see the issues, if it was adopted for banking and credit scoring. Will obviously lead to no paper cash society. Personally i like having cash on hand.
You whole life could be controlled by someone else potentially. Right now you have to be careful claiming this the mark of the beast. Are you claiming these people are followers of Satan?

A bitcoin is also only a record, most of the processing is done remotely or in the cloud using blockchain on each process (for security).

This is also unique and 'persistant' (birth-to-death) i.e. once you have it, it cannot be removed, and without it (in years to come) ...and you may be denied services.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

If it just for medicinal record keeping, I don’t think we have to be concerned right now?
I can see the issues, if it was adopted for banking and credit scoring. Will obviously lead to no paper cash society. Personally i like having cash on hand.
You whole life could be controlled by someone else potentially. Right now you have to be careful claiming this the mark of the beast. Are you claiming these people are followers of Satan?

i'm not. accumulator is

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not. accumulator is

I'm not, Spring is.

My only view is to 'question or debate' whether this is a good or bad thing,

I.e. Should it be accepted without question?

Clearly it has some advantages (no need to every carry paper/plastic ID or even cash), but also has some negative aspects.
It's not a simple Y/N conclusion until full-facts are known. However by then it may just be too late....

Deleted User wrote: »

But it makes zero sense for any significant amount of data to be stored on one's skin. Data in general is prone to corruption, skin gets damaged on a constant basis. Everything from sun damage to scratches, that makes it pretty useless for biometric tattoos to act as storage containers of any notable amount of info.

Your explanation here makes sense. How deep under the Skin? Imagine they have thought of this already, or maybe not?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

I'm not, Spring is.

...

I'm lost here. Did you claim this was the mark of the beast or not? One poster said you posted info from the Book of revelation?

Dohnjoe

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Might be a poor comparison, but it made excellent sense for some during WW2 to tattoo/mark/stamp a unique serial number on some folks they captured, to keep a track of.

The QDT was already tested in skin exposed to sunlight for 5yrs (cadaver and pigskin), and it withheld it's data. This is also only the 1st gen, smaller needles means more and better storage capability.

A vaccine (data combo) delivered this way does not require refrigeration so has benefits over the current method.

Indeed but why do you keep applying "potentials" for this tech and then assuming some sort of paranoid worst case scenario?

It's like claiming, well we have a military, they have guns, they could turn around and start killing us, (it's happened in the past), it could happen

It's simple fear-mongering with no realistic basis..