Digital ID's for everyone

And one of the key aspects is persistence of the data. The biometric data we were born with isn't changing. Persistent data eg info on vaccines etc will ultimately be on the cloud. Not a tattoo.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

.... "secret Nazi's" killed JFK and pulled off 911 ....Sandy Hook truthers ........biblical "mark of the beast" or the moon landings .....

Some joker, lol^,
Again!, anything to derail the topic at hand with a crutch of word-vomiting dumping of random (non-related) topics. A conspiracy within itself.

Perhaps 'DigitalIDs' and id2020.org, are something you're not even aware of, or more likely, not want to contemplate.
After all it's likely inevitable, in the same was a cashless society is just a matter of time. Technological progress, labour saving, very efficent (and plenty of other advantages) yes all these things.
But if/when it becomes a manditory event, there will have been little discussion or consideration beforehand.

So...would Dohnjoe accept e.g. quantun dot tattoo?
Along with his vaccine (or some other unique digtally readable data point) e.g. details of subject, and the vaccine details taken?

Y/N? (honestly don't expect an clear answer to this btw, that's a given, diversion instead).

Deleted User wrote: »

Persistent data eg info on vaccines etc will ultimately be on the cloud.

The cloud (blockchain encryped) would likely be the place for 'storage'. id2020.org already recognise a single centralised storage point of data, but also of the risks this presents.

Along with cloud storage, you actually require i) a subject (with their unique, beyond biometric new uniqe level of birth-to-death identification), and also ii) a trigger event process e.g. immunity check via scan, before availing of travel.

If you seriously reckon face/iris scans on their own are sufficent then maybe inform id2020.org, whom seem to be seeking other, better and more unique identifer digital technologies.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

beyond biometric

The website you keep linking does not use this term. They say "biometric".
This new term of "beyond biometric" is something you've just made up and falsely attributed to them because the technologies you are also falsely claiming they are wanting aren't actually biometric.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

If you seriously reckon face/iris scans on their own are sufficent then maybe inform id2020.org, whom seem to be seeking other, better and more unique identifer digital technologies.

But they don't seem to be seeking other technologies. You've not actually shown that to be the case.

And again, they use the term biometric. That means things like face scans, iris scans and fingerprinting etc.

For example, I suggested before that they intend to use a combination of several biometric measures along with cheap, efficient ways of logging that information that's connected to a central, global database that frequently updates itself.
Since it's been shown that fingerprint scans can last for upwards of ten years, it could be that such a system frequently updates the fingerprint scan on file every time that person uses the system. Using this in combination with several other methods of biometric ID that also similarly update would make for a very accurate form of identification.

This would make it persistent far more than a tattoo that could be removed or blocked or a magical, hyper advanced vaccine that would somehow stay in the body forever and never break down.

Why do you reject this idea beyond that it wouldn't match the biblical prophesy you believe?
Also, why do you believe the bible is inaccurate when it says the mark of the beast would be on the hand AND the forehead?

King Mob wrote: »

But they don't seem to be seeking other technologies. You've not actually shown that to be the case.
And again, they use the term biometric. That means things like face scans, iris scans and fingerprinting etc.

A falsehood (not 'seeming' or seeking other technologies).
A falsehoold (the implant not biometric) A Quantum Data Tattoo (QDT) would actually contain (multiple) biometric data.strings for (wireless) digital scans (recall).

You fail again to recognise The id2020.org scope is huge, one of their largest main partners is Gavi (vaccine alliance). Now Gavi itself emerged on the initiative of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ...

This B&MG foundation (vaccines) is just after funding and publishing latest progress on 'other technologies' such as the 'quantum dot tattoo'. A microneedle semi-conductive patch can administer 'both' the vaccine and quantum dots at same time, that sit under the skin. This digitally read mark on the body, can contain data, and is designed for vaccine registry, and also to establish a DigitalID (birth-to-death persistant) mark.

Besides, fingerprints are contact method (thus rejected), they're also unsitable for newborns at intended main vaccination point (due to blurry visual results), nevermind bodily changes over time. Face scans at this point also useless - for adult recall (both non-persistant). FRSsystems are also greatly flawed and easy to bypass and manipulate. Test also show significant 'false' results, this is much higher for black & enthic faces, it simply lacks persistance.

The QDTattoo, would in itself, be 'superior' to standard biometrics. Nonetheless.. it would also contain all information of (multiple) biometric data, (for secondary verfication). In itself it's a 'better' (with multiple) biometric, and a medical data measurement point, than any other. Also with much less processing, using a UID and Centralised Database. A very interesting new innovate technology.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

A falsehood (not 'seeming' or seeking other technologies).
A falsehoold (the implant not biometric) A Quantum Data Tattoo (QDT) would actually contain (multiple) biometric data.strings for (wireless) digital scans (recall).

I'm sorry, this passage makes no grammatical sense at all.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

This B&MG foundation (vaccines) is just after funding and publishing latest progress on 'other technologies' such as the 'quantum dot tattoo'. A microneedle semi-conductive patch can administer 'both' the vaccine and quantum dots at same time, that sit under the skin. This digitally read mark on the body, can contain data, and is designed for vaccine registry, and also to establish a DigitalID (birth-to-death persistant) mark.

But that technology isn't birth to death persistent and it isn't biometric...
It can be disabled, removed and hacked.

By the same standards you're applying, this technology should be rejected too.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Besides, fingerprints are contact method (thus rejected), they're also unsitable for newborns at ...(due to blurry visual results), nevermind bodily changes over time. Face scans at this point also useless - for adult recall (both non-persistant). FRSsystems are also greatly flawed and easy to bypass and manipulate. Test also show significant 'false' results, this is much higher for black & enthic faces, it simply lacks persistance.

Again, you are making several claims that aren't true, pointing to problems that can be addressed with improving technology and you are ignoring points I've made because you can't address them.
Specifically you keep leaving out Iris recognition and other biometric technologies because you can't dream up a problem you can declare is unsolvable for them.
You also keep ignoring my suggestion that they actually plan to use several types of biometrics combined with cheap, easy to access and use scanners that connects to a global database that is constantly updating.

Also again, your passage is very difficult to decipher due to your very unusual use of brackets and punctuation and lack of proper use of articles.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

intended main vaccination point

Again, that's your completely unfounded accusation that you've yet to actually support.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

The QDTattoo, would in itself, be 'superior' to standard biometrics. Nonetheless.. it would also contain all information of (multiple) biometric data, (for secondary verfication). In itself it's a 'better' (with multiple) biometric, and a medical data measurement point, than any other. Also with much less processing, using a UID and Centralised Database. A very interesting new innovate technology.

Again, this appears to be a large amount of gibberish and bad writing.
You're saying that this tattoo would be biometric because it contains biometric data that you said was usless...

Also, you've cut out many points I made. Specificially, I asked why you believe the bible is inaccurate when it claimed the mark would also be in the forehead.

Why are you ignoring that point?

King Mob wrote: »

But that technology isn't birth to death persistent and it isn't biometric...
It can be disabled, removed and hacked.

How exactly do you remove an injected micro needle quantun dot tattoo (that holds biometrics e.g. facial scan data points)?
One dreads to think, a big ole butter knife?

How exactly do you hack id2020.orgs planned 'blockchain based centralised database'?
Is it the way you can print off your own bitcoin from a epson printer while making a cup of tea?

Pretty silly assumptions you make.

anyway without this embodied vaccine record, you will risk denial of services in the future, and would be considered to be 'without vaccine', so will get another.
In essence you'd be destroying your 'DigitalID', a bit like driving the car, right after throwing the D'Licence out the window, not a good idea is it.

It's much easier to turn the bluetooth off on your phone and delete the App (the current/old method of holding a digital certificate of immunity).

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

How exactly do you remove an injected micro needle quantun dot tattoo? One dreads to think, a big butter knife?

Same way you can remove your own fingerprints. By removing that area of skin, or covering with something that can block and/or replace the real thing.
You used that as a reason to reject the idea of fingerprinting.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

How exactly do you hack id2020.orgs planned 'blockchain based centralised database', is it the way you can print off your own bitcoin from a epson printer while making a cup of tea?

You also previously claimed that that same database could be fooled using contact lenses to fake an iris scan...

I feel there's a couple of double standards here....

Those points also don't change the fact that the technology you're suggesting isn't biometric, persistent or birth to death.

It also doesn't address the many points you are ignoring. I will consider them conceded going forward.

So now that you believe the bible is not accurate in regards to it's claims of the placement of the "mark of the beast", why you believe that it is accurate about the "mark of the beast" existing at all?

If anything the microdot is closer to the bcg vaccine. It's presence is gonna indicate a vaccine was received. It's unlikely to become a qr code identifier of a person or whatever.

King Mob wrote: »

Same way you can remove your own fingerprints. By removing that area of skin, or covering with something that can block and/or replace the real thing.
You used that as a reason to reject the idea of fingerprinting.

That's a very close on-contact (virus risk), slower and singular point contact measurement, it's also not persistant or reliable (from birth). It's also meant to be very simple on-skin using acid.

QDT is under skin and digitally infrared reabable from distance. Silly comparison. Also note it could become manditory (manditory DigitalID) like the vaccine for COVID, with it's certificate of immunisation.

King Mob wrote: »

You also previously claimed that that same database could be fooled using contact lenses to fake an iris scan...

If you're comparing Blockchain tech to simple and effective lo-fi visual distortions for a camera, you'll need to repeat the kompter school classes.

King Mob wrote: »

Those points also don't change the fact that the technology you're suggesting isn't biometric, persistent or birth to death.

It's established (ideally) at birth like a tattoo. The MIT team's 1st test was good for 5yrs under continious direct sunlight, the next version(s) are intended have more data capability and become more permanent (polymers are wonderful materials).

King Mob wrote: »

It also doesn't address the many points you are ignoring. I will consider them conceded going forward.

To be honest you have exceeded (again) your quota of silly misleading and diversive questions e.g.

King Mob wrote: »

.... the bible is not accurate in regards to it's claims of the placement of the "mark of the beast"

More diversion (like previous).

Seems you have some sudden fasination with the Bible now, good for you. As your a very keen athiest maybe seek some help from someone in a position to help you?

Deleted User wrote: »

If anything the microdot is closer to the bcg vaccine. It's presence is gonna indicate a vaccine was received. It's unlikely to become a qr code identifier of a person or whatever.

In essence, yes it is a sermi-conductive (includes copper) data mark.

The big question might be the scale of readability, I can read and process a similar QRCode from across a room with basic phone, and results (web status process check) are returned all within a second.

Many standard cameras can already read infrared, so perhaps street level CCTV and smartphone street posts (like those taken down in HongKong by protestors) will be able to read the pattern from a fair distance.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

That's a very close on-contact (virus risk), slower and singular point contact measurement, it's also not persistant or reliable (from birth). It's also meant to be very simple on-skin using acid.

Again, assumptions that there's no other methods of scaning fingerprints. And again, if you have fingertips that have been burned away by acid, it's a bit of a give away.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

QDT is under skin and digitally infrared reabable from distance. Silly comparison. Also note it could become manditory (manditory DigitalID) like the vaccine for COVID, with it's certificate of immunisation.

Why can't this tattoo not be removed exactly?

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

If you're comparing Blockchain tech to simple and effective lo-fi visual distortions for a camera, you'll need to repeat the kompter school classes.

Again, you said that same data base could be fooled using contact lenses.
If that's something that you believe is possible, then it's possible that people cause also hack your tattoos.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

It's established (ideally) at birth like a tattoo. The MIT team's 1st test was good for 5yrs under continious direct sunlight, the next version(s) are intended have more data capability and become more permanent (polymers are wonderful materials).

Yes, but 5 years isn't permanent.
You are insisting that technology will improve that limit. But when I point out that the same could be true for other methods, you ignore it.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

To be honest you have exceeded (again) your quota of silly misleading and diversive questions e.g.

More diversion (like previous).

Yes, you are ignoring questions and points you cannot address again. You do this often and it's very transparent.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Seems you have some sudden fasination with the Bible now, good for you. As your a very keen athiest maybe seek some help from someone in a position to help you?

Ok, and that's another question ignored because you can't answer honestly and directly.

Your conspiracy theory is a bit silly if you have to ignore so many things...

King Mob wrote: »

Why can't this tattoo not be removed exactly?

You've exceeded your quota of pointless questions, and have other things to do (you clearly haven't, perhaps you are welded to a chair?).

The big thing your missing, is not why remove - the quantum-dot-tattoo (backed by is2020.org associate the BGatesFoundation which funded the MIT team for vaccine tracking), and also to function as a DigitalID.

You simply would not want to remove this DigitalID.

Iin the same way you simply would not tear up any valid paper and plastic forms of ID....."denial of services, transports, insurance, access and public services".
We'll leave you to ponder on this^, and so the recommedation not to remove the data mark, (once accepted and it's on the database, there is likely no return).

You'll take it, and you'll like/use it. You may refuse to accept it, but id2020.org focus on this DigitalID as an access point for services, more so in the developing world, but ultimately everywhere, in due time.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You've exceeded your quota of pointless questions, and have other things to do (you clearly haven't, perhaps you are welded to a chair?).

Yes, you can frame however you like.
Framing it as if I have a "quota" of questions you will dain to answer is very cute.
But in reality you're just ignoring points and questions you can't answer or address directly and honestly.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You'll take it, and you'll like/use it. You may refuse to accept it, but id2020.org focus on this DigitalID as an access point for services, more so in the developing world, but ultimately everywhere, in due time.

But again, you haven't show this and it's been shown you're misrepresenting things, making odd and illogical connections and dismissing other explanations simply because you don't want to accept them.

For example all that rant above is not actually included in the link you constantly provide. Providing that link doesn't prove your claim, it does the opposite.

And all of this is in service to a belief you have because you partly believe a biblical prophesy that you also believe is inaccurate....

You simply would not want to remove this DigitalID.

The exact same thing is true for biometrics. But they have the benefit of being permanent and actually biometric like you link says.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

In essence, yes it is a sermi-conductive (includes copper) data mark.

The big question might be the scale of readability, I can read and process a similar QRCode from across a room with basic phone, and results (web status process check) are returned all within a second.

Many standard cameras can already read infrared, so perhaps street level CCTV and smartphone street posts (like those taken down in HongKong by protestors) will be able to read the pattern from a fair distance.

Eh, it's still subject to being damaged. It's completely unreliable beyond being a very basic marker. You simply haven't provided a plausible basis for it acting as id.

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, it's still subject to being damaged. It's completely unreliable beyond being a very basic marker. You simply haven't provided a plausible basis for it acting as id.

It's a data point, a digital readable (and semi-conductive) under skin tattoo.
It's designed as a scanable proof of birth vaccine and later immunisations^.

Not only is it intended to store vaccine data (time/date/type of medical history), it could easily have a unique identifier (as many more simple serial number tattoos do), as data load increases, it could well contain (all) other biometric measurements, as secondary level DigitalID verfication.

This would be the gateway (DigitalID) to let the subject with blockchain enhanced DigitalID, access other services, as proof of idenity± Hence, you would not ever wish to try to remove or damage (if even possible).
id2020.org (via Gavi) have already worked with the Government of Bangladesh on one of their many pilot projects

/ NEW YORK, Sept. 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/:

ID2020 unveiled its latest good digital identity program in partnership with the Access to Information (a2i) Program of the Government of Bangladesh, the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) and Gavi. ^ 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.

Anir Chowdhury, policy advisor at a2i. "The Government of Bangladesh recognizes that the design of digital identity systems ± carries far-reaching implications for individuals' access to services and livelihoods, and we are eager to pioneer this approach."

To offer a persistent digital identity from birth, the program will explore and assess several cutting-edge infant biometric technologies, unlocking a potential global public good...

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

It's a data point, a digital readable (and semi-conductive) under skin tattoo.
It's designed as a scanable proof of birth vaccine and later immunisations^.

Not only is it intended to store vaccine data (time/date/type of medical history), it could easily have a unique identifier (as many more simple serial number tattoos do), as data load increases, it could well contain (all) other biometric measurements, as secondary level DigitalID verfication.

But again, it's not permanent or persistent and it isn't birth to death.
It's also not biometric.
The link you keep posting clearing is not refering to that technology.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

This would be the gateway (DigitalID) to let the subject with blockchain enhanced DigitalID, access other services, as proof of idenity± Hence, you would not ever wish to try to remove or damage (if even possible).

And again, no where in your link does any of this get mentioned. This is your own supposition that based on a biblical prophesy that you believe is not even accurate...

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

id2020.org (via Gavi) have already worked with the Government of Bangladesh on one of their many pilot projects

What method did they use for this pilot project? You seem to have left that part out along with a link to the actual article you're quoting.

It doesn't make sense for them to be able to conduct this pilot program if the technology you believe they want to use doesn't actually work and doesn't meet any of the things you claim they want...

±https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/id2020-alliance-launches-digital-id-program-with-government-of-bangladesh-and-gavi-announces-new-partners-at-annual-summit-300921926.html

King Mob wrote: »

But again, it's not permanent or persistent and it isn't birth to death. It's also not biometric. And again, no where in your link does any of this get mentioned...
What method did they use for this pilot project? You seem to have left that part out along with a link to the actual article you're quoting.
It doesn't make sense for them to be able to conduct this pilot program if the technology you believe they want to use doesn't actually work and doesn't meet any of the things you claim they want...

You sound like someone in a perma-state of denial, not only about current technological developememts, but past and the future cutting-edge infant biometrics linked to establishing a new DigitalID. e.g. bodily embedded data points (e.g. Quantum Dot Tatoos) and actual Digital ID and as quoted in the iRespond landing page, link below: (Digital Identity for everyone on the planet^).

Biometric, yes (also beyond biometric such as implanted quantum dot tattoo). Also (as mentioned on this {one of many} pilot programs) ^ https://www.irespond.org/ "a unique digital biometric ID^ (Digital ID) solution.

Banglidesh state ± recongise initaves such as this as:

(DGHS) and Gavi. 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.

To offer a persistent digital identity from birth, the program will explore and assess several cutting-edge infant biometric technologies

One of their many tools is to use current biometric data, and turn this into a data string (a unique blockchain serial number*) so to speak, stored digitally on a central database. This data string would be perfect for the BillGates vaccine combined quantum dot tattoo!

It deconstructs and encrypts current biometrics, and turns this into a data point (UNID: serial number). https://www.irespond.org/our-solution/
(Beyond simple biometrics), but the digitisation, and encryption of biometrics for future digital scans or recall.

The {iRespond} the template (iris biometric,) in turn, to is paired with a 12-digit string of randomly generated numbers forming a unique numeric ID (UNiD).

So the arm implant mark (QDT), would be verfied by a a forehead scan (iris), then verfied by the blockhain chain encrption (Accenture manage this), at the time of Digital verification e.g. Vaccine check, access to public services, and likely also buying of goods or services.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/id2020-alliance-launches-digital-id-program-with-government-of-bangladesh-and-gavi-announces-new-partners-at-annual-summit-300921926.html

"The Government of Bangladesh recognizes that the design of digital identity systems carries far-reaching implications for individuals' access to services and livelihoods, and we are eager to pioneer this approach."

ohnonotgmail

for a supposed conspiracy everybody involved seems very open about what they are doing.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

for a supposed conspiracy everybody involved seems very open about what they are doing.

That's the beauty of it, no one suspects a thing (except for some intrepid internet detectives of course)

keep that in mind when the powers-that-be are lashing you down to take the mandatory Covid19 vaccine, permanent digital tattoo and forced RFID chip in about a years time

EyesClosed

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4Un8bZ5RUILW5WrXEwPeM8?si=WoXcDSgTRnWcbXSKlg6zog

Louis and Jon talking conspiracies. Starts about half way through, they mention 5g and Bill Gates implants.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

You sound like someone in a perma-state of denial, not only about current technological developememts, but past and the future cutting-edge infant biometrics linked to establishing a new DigitalID.

But again, I'm just pointing out the double standard you're applying.
You keep rejecting the idea of them using actual biometrics because you insist the technology is inadequate and cannot be improved or developed.

You say that fingerprinting cannot be used because it can't last from birth to death.
Your method also cannot last from birth to death.
If you believe that your method can be improved and developed to become better and overcome it's current limits, then the same is true for other technologies.

However you are applying a double standard as you want a certain type of technology to be the best to partly satisfy the wording of a biblical prophesy.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Biometric, yes

Biometric, no.
Because words have specific meanings and that's not what the word means.
Biometrics does not refer to implanted anythings. It refers to things like fingerprints and iris scans.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

(also beyond biometric such as implanted quantum dot tattoo).

But "beyond biometric" isn't a real term. It's one you're just pulled out of your arse to explain away an issue with your conspiracy theory.
None of the people or organisations you're accusing of things ever use this term for anything.

Similar with "Biometric linked" you are misconstruing what that term means so you can better fit evidence to your notion about a biblical prophesy.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

One of their many tools is to use current biometric data, and turn this into a data string (a unique blockchain serial number*) so to speak, stored digitally on a central database. This data string would be perfect for the BillGates vaccine combined quantum dot tattoo!

But if they can use actual biometric data to do this (which again, is the stated goal on the website you keep linking) why do they need a quantum dot tattoo?

The only reason is so it can satisfy the idea that the bible "predicted" this.

But then also the bible was wrong when it said that the mark would be in the forehead as well...

I'm also pretty sure people made all these same arguments back when the belief was that Barcodes were the number of the beast...

So the arm implant mark (QDT), would be verfied by a a forehead scan (iris),

Your Iris is not in your forehead...

And the bible doesn't say "arm" it says hand.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's the beauty of it, no one suspects a thing (except for some intrepid internet detectives of course)

keep that in mind when the powers-that-be are lashing you down to take the mandatory Covid19 vaccine, permanent digital tattoo and forced RFID chip in about a years time

Nah, that will be for the next big health crisis. Accumulator has already hedged his bets there.

King Mob wrote: »

Nah, that will be for the next big health crisis. Accumulator has already hedged his bets there.

We had a poster called "run_to_da_hills" or something way back making predictions for years and years about this RFID/microchip/vaccine stuff, eventually they just gave up on it and seemed to disappear

Interesting how the smarter ones are devious enough to know not to make short-term predictions

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

for a supposed conspiracy everybody involved seems very open about what they are doing.

Agree, in reality it's not a conspiracy at all. 'Digital IDs for everyone"
is a very open (UN backed) push. Managed through id2020.org and it's partners. Only folks like KingMob are in denial, of this fact (KingMob is likely busy now typing some diversion string containing ufos/bible/soros/etc).

To quote id2020.org's own (iRespond) program: as published https://www.irespond.org/
"Digital identity for everyone on the planet" and on the same page, using a unique {new} digital biometric identity solution.

{The Biometric [Digitised] Private Key} "iRespond deconstructs the iris (biometric) into a unique template that can’t be forged or duplicated. The template in turn is paired with a 12-digit string of randomly generated numbers forming a unique numeric ID (UNiD)."

Perfect for vaccine tracking (as has been used), along with electronic medical record matching, it actually meets the failures of the current standard reliance of volountary bluetooth tracking on phones for COVID.

This Digital Identity System "push", will like it's pilot programs (and BGates QDT embodiment project), bring blockchain-based biometric identity to eveyone on the planet.

The only conspiracy (if that) is actually the debate (that hasn't really happened), about how exactly it will be implimented, and the implications of everyone on the planet having this UNiD.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Agree, in reality it's not a conspiracy at all. 'Digital IDs for everyone"
is a very open (UN backed) push. Managed through id2020.org and it's partners. Only folks like KingMob are in denial, of this fact.

To quote id2020.org's own

For the 10th time, why do you keep repeatedly writing the website address of the organisation?

You've never answered that question. Are you actually trying to affect SEO? There's no other explanation

Dohnjoe wrote: »

[topic diversion]

'Digital IDs for everyone" is managed through id2020.org and it's partners.
id2020.org (or id2020 if you prefer

) is the name of the organisation group/project. Maybe seek counselling - if the obsessive reference type to them upsets you in some way, that's the only advice can offer you, sorry.

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

'Digital IDs for everyone" is managed through id2020.org and it's partners.
id2020.org

It's a simple question that has been asked many times before, yet each time you refuse to address it properly

Why do you keep typing "ID2020.org" instead of just "ID2020"?

(Earlier in the thread you were even putting the http:// in front of it every time)

Kehlani Massive Magnum wrote: »

Only folks like KingMob are in denial, of this fact (KingMob is likely busy now typing some diversion string containing ufos/bible/soros/etc).

It's not a diversion to bring up the bible when it's the foundation for your entire conspiracy theory.

You are now once again simply ignoring points you can't address.

Why do you think this tactic is working in your favour?