Recommended Posts

Soldiers33

If you're not saying an RFID chip is the mark, why did you quote that passage?

because its all coming to this. It might not be a mark now, but in future it could be. And if you dont get that done then you wont be able to buy or sell an so on. You will basically be mistreated as a different kind. For now it could be for cashless methods or security and so on, but who knows what the real reason is for these methods. Cash and paper based documents have worked for so long, so why suddenly move to all electronic? Its because everything that the bible says is happening, and will happen.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomo

I remember a while ago they wanted a RFID chip which works as a credit card, so you go to a shop grab something off the shelf and walk out and it gets automatically charged.

 

Sounds like a great excuse to shoplift.

 

'I could've sworn I had my wallet with me!'

 

or even walk out of the shop next to someone else and let them foot the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GotBored

because its all coming to this. It might not be a mark now, but in future it could be. And if you dont get that done then you wont be able to buy or sell an so on. You will basically be mistreated as a different kind. For now it could be for cashless methods or security and so on, but who knows what the real reason is for these methods. Cash and paper based documents have worked for so long, so why suddenly move to all electronic? Its because everything that the bible says is happening, and will happen.

 

Cause moving to electronic makes it easier to access/find. It also allows more information to be stored and has backups so it can't be lost like a paper medical file.

If you go on a holiday interstate and get sick, doctors can access your information electronically from your normal GP and get the info they need to help treat you.

 

There are many many benefits going to electronic format over paper for just about everything.

 

 

Sounds like a great excuse to shoplift.

 

'I could've sworn I had my wallet with me!'

 

or even walk out of the shop next to someone else and let them foot the bill.

 

 

You'd have your wallet on you if RFID chips were mandatory. None of my good points would work if it wasn't mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tomo

 

You'd have your wallet on you if RFID chips were mandatory. None of my good points would work if it wasn't mandatory.

And that's where the idea fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Albert

 

Revelations 13 in the New testament of the Bible says it all:

 

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

 

I'm not saying an RFID chip is the mark, but it sure is comming to a forehead of wrist near you!!

 

no worry. the holy hand granade of antioch shall snuff it good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Soldiers33

Cause moving to electronic makes it easier to access/find. It also allows more information to be stored and has backups so it can't be lost like a paper medical file.

If you go on a holiday interstate and get sick, doctors can access your information electronically from your normal GP and get the info they need to help treat you.

 

There are many many benefits going to electronic format over paper for just about everything.

 

 
 

 

You'd have your wallet on you if RFID chips were mandatory. None of my good points would work if it wasn't mandatory.

Well if you go abroad and doctors can get your records there then it will have to be one single database which means all countries will have to be in union. Which then proves the bible even more cause the time of the end will come when the world is under one single power.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.

So SecretAgentMan, what are you hiding from then? It is not people like me that causing this. This has been going on for decades but most just do not not know or realize this because most live in a plastic bubble. Nothing to hide, no problem something to hide then problem. Case closed.

Just to throw out a ridiculous situation, does this mean that you would be happy having surveillance cameras in every room in your house? Bathroom, bedroom, living room, kitchen? After all, you have nothing to hide.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
ramesees
NeoDominik, on 28 Nov 2013 - 14:02, said:

I remember a while ago they wanted a RFID chip which works as a credit card, so you go to a shop grab something off the shelf and walk out and it gets automatically charged.

 

Sounds okay to me.

 

Plus gps data so if someone were to murder someone else, they'd know who was near-by. Someone gets caught trafficking drugs, they can trace their steps and find the source and others involved without needing to ask any questions. Burglary happens? RFID chip security scanners at home so you can instantly find out who it was.

 

Medical data, so if you were injured they would know your blood type, allergies, etc straight away and could begin life-saving procedures instantly if you needed it. 

 

I'm looking forward to be able to leave my house doors unlocked.

 

Taking your GPS data idea one step further and combined with an Internet ID (actually they could combine the two and the unique Id of the RFID chip would be required to operate a computer / mobile phone / tablet / games console and thus the Internet).

 

You say something on an internet forum (eg slagging off the President or the Government) that is deemed to be illegal or a "terrorist act" or inciting hatred or whatever else. Your posts will of course be tracked to your personal RFID chip and someone in a room at the CIA, NSA, or GCHQ or whatever else agency marks your chips permissions to travel to certain areas as heavily reduced.

 

You were planning on taking a holiday out of state or out of the country ?

You get to the airport, scan your RFID chip as it now acts as your passport and a big red warning light comes on in a security office somewhere in the airport.

 

"Excuse me sir / madam would you mind coming with me?"

 

You find your travel has been denied you are now a prisoner in your own country, no access to travel externally until you have been "punished" which may be a day, a week, a month, longer if necessary. You cant cancel your holiday and get a refund as the Ts and Cs of the holiday operator or insurance company will be updated to include language such as "Any travel restrictions brought about by committing an offense and having your RFID chip permissions curtailed will not be covered under our refund policy" in the same manner as they do now with language such as "If you get drunk and fall down the stairs you aren't covered" (paraphrasing obviously).

 

Tied to your bank account you could have your funds withheld.

If as you say they will be able to know who is in the immediate area (so family, friends) and they access their bank records to see if they have been withdrawing more money for the weekly shop (to buy food for you) they could also be penalised for helping someone who has had their RFID chip disabled or privileges reduced.

 

You see where this can go?

There are many benefits yes to a technology such as the RFID chip, but there are many more downsides.

 

Unless of course you plan on being a "good little citizen" who questions nothing, accepts all government intrusions into your life, and signs away your life and those of others around you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

People are over reacting to this. People are actually funny.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ramesees
belto, on 28 Nov 2013 - 15:41, said:

People are over reacting to this. People are actually funny.

 

Explain to me how we are overreacting ?

 

A detailed reason would be good not just the usual, tired, "you're all paranoid, blah blah blah".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

Just read the comments.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ramesees

Going to need a little more than that if you don't mind.

 

Its all too easy to dismiss something by saying "read the comments" without having the courage or ability or insight to properly back up your statement of "people are overreacting". And what if you are underreacting? Is that not worse ?

 

Granted we have no proof that this is going to happen, but if it came out tomorrow that this was to be implemented do you feel peoples "overreactions" are invalid, or would you just go along with it because the government have mandated it ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
exotoxic

Plus gps data so if someone were to murder someone else, they'd know who was near-by. Someone gets caught trafficking drugs, they can trace their steps and find the source and others involved without needing to ask any questions. Burglary happens? RFID chip security scanners at home so you can instantly find out who it was.

no criminal is going to carry the chip around with them even if they had to be implanted inside people. the only way to fix this would be to have scanning devices EVERYWHERE to make sure everyone has it in/on them. There is also the problem of stolen/lost/forged chips, people could commit crimes with them and you will instantly be number 1 suspect, depending on the crime you could end up with 8 police officers bashing your door in and turning your house upside down.

I imagine this problem would be widespread and end up costing the police alot in wasted time/money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

It is just a chip people, again if you have nothing to hide why fear it unless you are hiding something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andre S.

because its all coming to this. It might not be a mark now, but in future it could be. And if you dont get that done then you wont be able to buy or sell an so on. You will basically be mistreated as a different kind. For now it could be for cashless methods or security and so on, but who knows what the real reason is for these methods. Cash and paper based documents have worked for so long, so why suddenly move to all electronic? Its because everything that the bible says is happening, and will happen.

But Revelation is not a bunch of predictions about random events happening now. It was a symbolic message of hope for the oriental churches under roman oppression in the 1st century. It makes a whole lot more sense that way, in the context in which it was written, than trying to draw sketchy parallels with present-day events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

because its all coming to this. It might not be a mark now, but in future it could be. And if you dont get that done then you wont be able to buy or sell an so on. You will basically be mistreated as a different kind. For now it could be for cashless methods or security and so on, but who knows what the real reason is for these methods. Cash and paper based documents have worked for so long, so why suddenly move to all electronic? Its because everything that the bible says is happening, and will happen.

 

 

 

Your post is so full of nonsense. None of this is being said in the bible and all you're doing by even suggesting that some implant is part of some "mark" is nothing more then reading into what you want it to say, not what it actually says. As for moving away from a cash/paper system, it's simple, not only have we been moving away from it for a few decades now, but it's cost effective to do so. Paper and money take resources and money to make and you need a steady supply of both to keep in circulation. Dollars bills cost up to .10 cents per bill depending on the bill denomination and are printed and circulated into the public domain ever year. Depending on the denomination some bills only last a few years in circulation. We spend almost a billion dollars just printing the actual dollars used in circulation each year. Cutting that costs along, specially over a long period of time is just smart investment among other reasons. Same goes for paper used for receipts, accounting, ect., electronic methods are far more efficient and cost effective then keeping with the current costly ways. So no, we aren't suddenly moving to electronic methods and no this isn't some bible prediction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

It is just a chip people, again if you have nothing to hide why fear it unless you are hiding something.

 

 

 

I replied to your post already on this. 

 

 

 

 

You dont need to be a criminal or anything else to expect a Right to not be viewed as one beforehand. While Im not in the boat that we have given up our current Rights as a whole, though there are examples of it happening slowly, I do think we are inching closer and closer to giving them up all in the name of security. "Security" which so far has shown to be more of a problem in recent years then a problem solver. I don't buy into this mandatory chip nonsense but at the same time Ill be damn if Id let someone force me to become part of it. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.

People are over reacting to this. People are actually funny.

I find it interesting that you choose to ignore others comments and questions towards you and instead just continue to tell people that they are overreacting. My question to you still stands, can I go ahead and install those cameras in your house?
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

Global mod, my opinion still stands. Will never change. As I said read over the comments especially the one about religion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

Global mod, my opinion still stands. Will never change. As I said read over the comments especially the one about religion.

 

 

 

Religion has zero to do with this and you kept asking a question to which an answer was given. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.

Global mod, my opinion still stands. Will never change. As I said read over the comments especially the one about religion.

I don't have a problem with your opinion at all, you're entitled to it. But from that opinion I assume that you wouldn't have an issue with cameras being placed all over your house, taping everything you do in the shower, living room, kitchen, bedroom...you are basically telling me that you wouldn't mind being Truman Burbank. Again, if you don't mind cameras watching everything that you do then that is fine, I just wanted some clarification to see if there was a level of privacy that you would be uncomfortable about losing. I wouldn't like the idea that someone could be watching me shower, for instance. While I might not have anything to hide, I would still like that level of privacy and choice.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

Have you heard the word exaggeration. I never said what you are assuming on your part so stop trying to incite unnecessary problems. You are really reading to deep into this topic. As I said, if you have nothing to hide, no problems.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag

Have you heard the word exaggeration. I never said what you are assuming on your part so stop trying to incite unnecessary problems. You are really reading to deep into this topic. As I said, if you have nothing to hide, no problems.

 

 

 

Have you heard of the term deflection? Cause that's what you're doing now. You keep ignoring the point that you don't need to be doing anything wrong or hiding something to still expect a level of privacy from the gov or anyone else. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.

Have you heard the word exaggeration. I never said what you are assuming on your part so stop trying to incite unnecessary problems. You are really reading to deep into this topic. As I said, if you have nothing to hide, no problems.

Ah, so you're now telling me that you expect some level of privacy?

I admit - and indeed pointed out in my first post - that the situation I was offering was out there compared to an RFID chip. But they cover the same aspects when it comes down to privacy. Your argument of "if you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with your privacy being invaded" doesn't make sense to me.

Let's flip the question around slightly. If I have done nothing wrong, why do they want to track me? If a criminal is under house arrest they are given a tracking bracelet to keep track of their movements. Why do they want to monitor me as if I were a criminal when I have done nothing wrong?

There is that quote, "1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual." I don't know if you have read the book, but it's not a society that I would want to be a member of. It gets to a point where if someone doesn't have the same opinion as the government they get taken away.

Do you have any issues with China's government, or North Korea? I'm not saying that the RFID chip will bring about such changes on its own, but if you don't stand up and oppose things like this or the NSA tracking you are telling the government that they can get away with such things. From there they will ask themselves, "what else can we get away with?"

These sorts of things can never be looked in to too deeply. My point is that you appear to be saying, "it's just a chip, it's no big deal" while the rest of us are saying, "but what will their next step be if we allow this to happen?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
belto

What I find pathetic and funny is that some people try to hard to just talk bull. I said what I said and it still stands firm. Get over it and grow up. Like I said, nothing to hide no problems. Now I am wondering why people are trying to hide something when they have nothing to hide to begin with. No matter how you make yourself sound intelligent still does not deflect my comments, it only in forces it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By zikalify
      President Trump's Twitter password was 'maga2020!', says researcher
      by Paul Hill



      Victor Gevers, a Dutch hacker, was able to break into President Donald Trump’s Twitter account on October 16, 2020, by using the password 'maga2020!' according to reports. To prove his feat, he shared a screenshot with the Dutch outlet, Vrij Nederland (VN), showing the edit profile dialog box where he could have changed Trump’s display name, profile picture, and cover image.

      There were two astounding details about the breach; the first was that it only took Gevers seven attempts to guess the correct password, the other was that there was no two-factor authentication enabled to tighten up security on the account.



      Luckily for Trump, Victor Gevers is an ethical hacker so rather than deface or steal data from the account, which he could have done, he sent an email to Trump to inform him that he had managed to hack the account; this is known as responsible disclosure. If Gevers had malicious intent, he could have downloaded the president's data file which includes all information including deleted direct messages.

      At the time of writing, Vrij Nederland has reached out to Twitter to ask why the account of such a well-known figure is not protected with more security. It said that the social media firm had not responded to those queries yet.

      Source: Vrij Nederland (Dutch)

    • By Usama Jawad96
      WhatsApp Business to get improved privacy, service fees
      by Usama Jawad

      Facebook launched WhatsApp Business back in 2018 to help small businesses interact with customers and sell their products. In the current pandemic, the need for a central hub to communicate with online retailers has become more important than ever. The company says that over 175 million people message a WhatsApp business account daily.

      To further improve upon this experience, WhatsApp has detailed a host of new changes that it will be making to its service.

      First and foremost, it will be making it easier for businesses to sell products directly from the chat, and allow them to integrate these features with their existing solutions for customer and business management.

      It will also be expanding its roster of business solution providers for companies that want to work with other firms for hosting and managing their communications. To that end, it plans to roll out Facebook's own hosting services soon too, which businesses will be able to utilize to manage inventories and respond to messages to customers.

      Furthermore, WhatsApp will also be charging business accounts a fee for the services that are offered to them. The company says:

      Lastly, new privacy features will also be introduced to protect customer conversations, although the company hasn't gone into the details of what this entails. All of these changes will be gradually rolled out to customers over the next few months, and we'll likely learn more about them closer to their respective launches.

    • By indospot
      United States DOJ sues Google for monopolistic practices
      by João Carrasqueira



      Today, the Department of Defense in the United States filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google, claiming the company has violated antitrust laws to maintain its monopoly on the search engine and advertising markets. The lawsuit is backed by 11 Attorneys General from the states of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Texas.

      The Department's announcement labels Google as the "monopoly gatekeeper to the internet", as the company's search engine has accounted for over 90% of searches made in the United States for years. Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Google has used anticompetitive strategies to maintain its hold on the market, including a series of exclusionary agreements that force companies to sell or distribute products with Google preinstalled or set as the default search engine.

      Specifically, the complaint mentions the following cases where Google has bought its way into more users' lives:

      The Department of Justice calls back to 1998, when Microsoft was at the center of a similar investigation, as well as another similar case involving AT&T in 1974. Citing the case against Microsoft, the Department says it recognizes that "high-technology monopolists" are forbidden from entering agreements that force companies to use their products as default, or cut off distribution channels for rivals. The lawsuit against Google follows that same spirit.

      Naturally, the lawsuit claims the Google's practices have harmed the quality of products in the field by stifling its competitors. For consumers, this means that things such as user privacy and data protection have been lost or degraded in the process.

      Google has already fired back at the Department of Justice in a blog post, saying that it's easy for users to change search engines on any device they use. The company also mentions that Bing is the default search engine on Windows 10, though Bing is nowhere near market dominance in the search space. The company finishes by saying it's "focused on delivering the free services that help Americans every day".

      The search giant has been the target of many investigations and fines in the European Union in recent years, but has remained relatively untouched in the United States. It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit develops.

    • By Usama Jawad96
      Microsoft urges organizations to ensure data privacy instead of relying on state legislature
      by Usama Jawad

      With remote working environments becoming the new normal with the ongoing pandemic, digital data privacy and security has become more important than ever. To that end, over the past few weeks, Microsoft has launched the Zero Trust Deployment Center, new Threat Protection APIs, and initiatives to promote cybersecurity awareness.

      Now, the company is urging individual organizations to do more in ensuring the privacy and security of customer data rather than solely relying on the state legislature in the U.S.



      In a blog post penned by Julie Brill, Corporate Vice President for Global Privacy and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Privacy Officer at Microsoft, the executive has stated that as society transitions to recovering from the pandemic, data will play a critical role in rebuilding an equitable economy that is just for all. This data includes personal information and in order to fully utilize it, it is essential that people trust that their data will not be misused. Over the past few years, data breaches have led people to be extra cautious about how companies store and use their data, and Microsoft says that customer trust is quite fragile currently.

      Brill went on to say that while some U.S. states, the EU, and other countries have recently developed individual data privacy laws like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the United States as a whole is still using decades-old laws that are only limited to protecting a subset of data. The executive stated:



      Moving forward, Brill believes that while laws are important, the responsibility to ensure data security and privacy still lies with individual organizations. Recent YouGov surveys have shown that people in the United States believe that this is the responsibility of companies rather than the government. However, companies are instead placing this responsibility on customers themselves by pressuring them to navigate across various websites and apps to make decisions about how their data will be used. Brill stated:

      To that end, Microsoft has outlined four principles that it believes will create a framework of trust. These are:

      Microsoft believes that building this trust with customers is doable provided that both organizations as well as the government actively work together to develop and enforce laws about data privacy. It has also encouraged companies to take responsibility for protecting customer data, stating that it is the only way forward in the path to a robust and just economic recovery.

    • By zikalify
      End-to-end encryption coming to Zoom next week
      by Paul Hill

      Zoom has announced that it will finally roll out end-to-end encryption (E2EE) from next week. Initially, it will be launched as a technical preview where Zoom will ask for feedback from users. This period will last for about 30 days so that any issues can be ironed out.

      Once E2EE is launched to the public, users on both the free and paid tiers will be able to host up to 200 participants in an E2EE meeting on Zoom. These meeting rooms will provide increased privacy and security for those who need it.

      According to the firm, Zoom’s E2EE uses the same GCM encryption that is in use right now in Zoom meetings, the difference is that with E2EE, the meeting’s host generates encryption keys and uses public-key cryptography to distribute these keys to other participants. This means that Zoom’s servers never see the encryption keys required to decrypt a meeting’s content.

      Commenting on the launch of E2EE, Zoom CEO Eric S. Yuan, said:

      To begin using E2EE when it launches next week, users will need to enable E2EE meetings at the account level and opt-in on a per-meeting basis. It should be noted that not all of Zoom’s features are available in E2EE mode, these include join before host, cloud recording, streaming, live transcription, Breakout Rooms, polling, 1:1 private chat, and meeting reactions. To learn more about E2EE on Zoom, check out the FAQ at the bottom of the announcement.