reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Facial recognition will be used to unlock your digital identity, which is going to be a tool of control for the agendas that are coming down the pipeline. Elements of that control are already with us. Alexa, good morning. Good morning. You are never alone in your home, and this is why. All your devices at home and all smart appliances, they are all connected on a wireless network. Many of these devices will have cameras, many will have microphones, and so they are monitoring everything all the time. Your smart appliances are communicating with the smart meter and sending it real time usage data. If there is a Ring camera also in your home, a mesh network is formed and all your devices are being tracked within the home, its location, its usage and all the data is going to Amazon's servers. When you leave your home, all modern vehicles are connected to the Internet, so your automobile is being tracked all the time. When you are going under a string of smart LED poles and smart LED lights on the highway and in the streets of your towns and cities, those form a wireless network and are tracking your vehicle. They are tracking all the devices on you from smartphones to smartwatches when you're walking on the streets. So data is being collected twenty four seven continuously on every human being whenever you are within these wireless networks. Speaker 1: And it's obviously not good for health also because of all the electromagnetic radiation. Speaker 0: In the long term, the plan is to pretty much lock up humanity in smart cities, which is kind of a super set of a fifteen minute city. Speaker 1: They've sold all the state and local governments and countries that smart cities are about sustainability and the good of the city. But in reality, the language from the UN and WEF and their white papers is all inverted. So their monitoring is really about limiting mobility and no car ownership. Right? Surveillance control via LED grid is why the smart lighting is death. Water management is about water rationing. Noise pollution is about speed surveillance. Traffic monitoring is about limiting mobility. And then, of course, energy conservation is all about rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline. Another concept one should be familiar with is called geofencing, and that's think of it as an invisible fence around you where you cannot go beyond a certain point, and that'll be related to your face recognition, digital identity, and access control. Your smart contracts, Softbrick can turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house. Our world has been turned into a digital panopticon. Speaker 0: That means you can be monitored, analyzed, managed and monetized.

Electric cars are expensive and will be used to control where people can and cannot go. Unlike traditional cars, autonomous electric cars will be computer-driven and will only take passengers where they are allowed to go. The goal is not to save the planet from climate change, but rather to impose control over people's movements. The idea is to replace petrol and diesel cars with electric ones in order to limit people's freedom and decide where they can travel. The claim of saving the planet is just an excuse.

The speaker describes a rented car equipped with built-in tracking technology, saying a cell phone tower is installed in the vehicle to track the driver continuously. They claim that while settings allow turning off features like Bluetooth and Wi‑Fi, the “cell phone” function cannot be turned off, meaning the car has an always-on connection for tracking. They further state the car uses location tracking and that apps in the vehicle also track location. The speaker points to a microphone feature they say can be turned off to prevent listening while driving and talking to friends or family. They characterize the overall system as everything syncing together so Google can access location and related data. The speaker argues that car companies sell built-in features approved by car manufacturers that enable access to the car’s location for assistance while driving, ticket generation, and police use to identify speeding based on GPS and location. They claim authorities can use an app to send tickets to a person’s house. They mention a “speed camera audio warning” feature, saying it informs the driver when a speed camera is coming so they can slow down, rather than banning speed cameras. They also reference a climate change or air quality feature, claiming the system reports “denied” climate and air quality access to location and associates it with “punishment.” Finally, they advise that under location settings, the driver must disable location permissions for installed apps; otherwise, they claim the car tracks location 24/7/365. They conclude by emphasizing that the collected data could be sold to Google.

In the future, smart cities will use sensors and data to personalize your experience, monitor your activities, and even control behavior. While convenient, this raises concerns about privacy and government control. Personal data can be misused, and constant surveillance may limit freedom. The trade-off between benefits and privacy is a key question. Can we trust governments and corporations with our data, and what happens if the system fails or needs to be challenged?

Government remotely installed geofencing and geotiming on a Hyundai Kona EV without consent during a software upgrade. The new terms allow setting range and time limits on the car remotely, with exceptions for emergencies or legal requirements.

The speaker expresses concern about surveillance technology in modern cars, particularly ADAS (Automated Driver Assistance Systems). These systems, mandated by EU regulations and rolling out worldwide, include multiple cameras, many facing inward, constantly recording the driver. The speaker believes this technology is not for assistance but to ultimately remove driver control. The speaker raises the issue of "fifteen-minute cities" and how geofencing, enabled by these connected cars, could restrict movement. They claim that vehicles might be disabled upon crossing the boundary of a designated zone. They cite an example of someone whose car update included terms allowing manufacturers and authorities to activate geofencing. The speaker suggests this technology will be linked to digital IDs, allowing authorities to identify car occupants via facial recognition. They speculate that attempts to mask one's face might prevent the car from starting. The speaker concludes by expressing a desire to disconnect from the internet and digital devices to avoid a world controlled by a few.

Volkswagen just did something that should make every car owner furious. They're selling their electric I d three with its full horsepower locked behind a paid subscription. The car comes from the factory with 228 horsepower, but if you don't pay a monthly fee, it's software limited to just 201. For about $22 a month, they'll flip a digital switch and unlock the power that was already inside the car that you paid for. Now VW is selling you a subscription for your engine. Their defense, it gives customers a sportier driving experience without a higher initial purchase price. Imagine a monthly fee to use the high heat setting on your oven or the fast cycle on your dishwasher. You don't own the product. You're just renting its best features.

I have an iPhone. Does Google track my movement if I move to sit with my democrat friends? Google knows if I move, but it depends on the services I've opted into. Can you answer if Google knows I moved without more details?

In a Toyota '20 25, the screen navigation requires a subscription; "you can't use navigation unless you pay a subscription fee for it." You can't hook your phone up to use free navigation. The speaker notes subscription fees: "it's $15 a month" and "it's also $15 a month to stream music to the actual screen in your car." Together it's "$25 a month." They mention a forum claim: "it's $8 a month to be able to see your oil level and your tire pressure." They also say "The car is, like, $40" to use the car and the key fob. "Remote start" requires a subscription: "you have to literally pay a subscription fee to get remote start." The vehicle is capable of all these things, and "What the fuck reality is to use them."

Speaker 0 describes how, in a car they examined, navigation requires a paid subscription, noting it as "insane" that you can’t hook your phone up for free navigation. The subscription fees cited are $15 a month for navigation and $15 a month to stream music to the car’s screen, totaling $25 a month for those services. They also mention an $8 a month fee to view oil level and tire pressure, and that the vehicle is priced around $40 (unclear context, but presented as part of the overall cost discussion). Remote start is another feature that requires a subscription. The overall implication is that the vehicle, though capable of many features, pushes paid subscriptions for essential functionalities. Speaker 1 adds that the car had cameras not just for safety but for monitoring the driver, stating the car watches you drive to ensure compliance. If the driver touches their phone, the car would decelerate, and the system can track surrounding cars and objects, causing the car to automatically decelerate in response. The speaker notes that they connected a Bluetooth device, but it kept disconnecting every time they got in the car, and the assistant stated this happens because of the subscription model. They remark on the Toyota product they tested, noting the vehicle is “about over 70 k” for a brand-new model, implying a misalignment between the vehicle’s cost and the subscription-heavy features. They question trading in their current car, which has tangible, pressable buttons and sensory feedback, for a car that feels like it’s constantly watched and supervised. The speakers converge on concerns that many cars are claimed to be non-autonomous while being described as autonomous in practice, suggesting a paradox in the industry. The overall impression is that paid subscriptions govern core capabilities (navigation, music streaming, remote start) and ongoing monitoring features (driver surveillance and feature control), affecting the value proposition of high-cost vehicles.

The speaker expresses growing concern about how modern cars are becoming surveillance devices through automated driver assistance systems (ADAS) and connected technology. He describes a recent rental car as full of surveillance features, noting that ADAS regulations are EU-based but likely to be adopted worldwide. These systems can beep for minor speed overages and require constant attention to the windscreen; they can also shout if you remove your hands from the wheel. He cites that, on average, there are more than ten cameras in a car, most of which face inward to monitor the driver, with at least one camera focusing on the eyes to assess whether the driver is looking at the screen or is tired, suggesting that the goal is to ensure the driver cannot effectively control the car. He introduces the concept of geofencing, describing it as a feature that could restrict a vehicle’s operation when it crosses the edge of a defined boundary, such as the boundary of a “fifteen minute city.” He explains that with always-on, connected cars, crossing the boundary could trigger the car to slow down or enter a limp mode, allowing only first and second gear and effectively preventing out-of-bound travel. He urges listeners to look up geofencing as a standalone term and shares a personal anecdote: a dealer updated a car, and the owner had to accept new terms and conditions that allowed the manufacturer and authorities to activate geofencing software in the vehicle. The speaker connects these technologies to broader identification and tracking systems, suggesting that the car already reveals its location and that the owners' identity could be inferred by associating the car with the driver through facial recognition captured by in-car cameras. He speculates that masking could prevent the car from starting, and he imagines an intentionally malicious designer could exploit such features. He asks whether this is the world people want and expresses a personal desire to detach from the Internet and digital devices, even at the cost of inconvenience, as a way to avoid concentrated control. He emphasizes that the crucial point is a world that cannot be taken over by a small number of people.

The transcript claims that the World Economic Forum’s biggest fear is people who “won’t comply,” framing the fear as “your fight for freedom.” It says the concern is that individuals will “make individual decisions for yourself and you won’t follow their orders.” The transcript argues that digital systems are “absolutely key” because, without them, enforcement is not possible: it states that without digital tools, they “can’t enforce anything,” “can’t mandate that you do something,” and “can’t control your life.” It then says the discussion is not primarily about specific policy or health topics. Even when they address “carbon emissions” or what is “safe and effective,” or when they discuss “an experimental injection” or “a series of injections” and what is “safe and effective,” the transcript asserts those individual issues are not the real focus. Instead, it states that the issue is “the desire to control you from the outside in.” The transcript concludes that if there is a digital process that can “restrict your movement, your behavior, and your decisions with a click of a button,” then “you are done.”

A man was locked out of his smart home because his smart device detected audio it deemed racist. This incident highlights the power of smart devices and terms of service agreements, as they can restrict access to our homes. In Australia, a politician warns that smart cities equipped with face recognition, cameras, and license plate readers will enable constant tracking of individuals. Additionally, with the introduction of centralized bank digital currencies, our spending will require approval, potentially leading to exclusion from government services, healthcare, vacations, and the internet. This could result in a new form of societal exclusion resembling gulags.

Manual driving will be treated like smoking. Regulations will stack against you. Urban bans on human driving. Car culture will shrink but not die. Narrative manipulation will play a role. Think about that. So it's for your own good. You know? We're keeping everybody safe. That's why you aren't allowed to drive your car. Of course, they'll be able to restrict your freedom too. Right, Sean? I mean, they'll be able to say where you can go and when you can go there. And it's like, oh, you know, I wanna go take a nice trip with the family and go go past Area 51 and check out Roswell and say, no. Forbidden area. You can't go there. Sorry. And it takes you on another route.

Washington lawmakers are advancing two proposals that would expand the state’s control over how three-dimensional printers and similar equipment can be used, citing the spread of “untraceable firearms” as justification. House bill 2321 would require that all three‑D printers sold in Washington after 07/01/2027 include built‑in safeguards that detect and block attempts to produce firearms or firearm components. The safeguards must reject such print requests with a high degree of reliability and prevent users from disabling or bypassing the control system. To meet the rule, manufacturers could embed the detection algorithm directly into a printer’s firmware, integrate it through preprint software, or use an authentication process that screens design files before printing. Manufacturers failing to comply could be charged with a class C felony, facing penalties of up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. The measure defines these safeguards as a firearms blueprint detection algorithm. A related bill, House bill 2320, would prohibit the use of three‑D printers, CNC milling machines, or other tools to produce unregistered firearms. It would also make it illegal to distribute or possess digital files capable of creating gun parts. The bill targets both the physical manufacturing of ghost guns and the online exchange of design data. Representative Osman Sallehuden introduced the legislation, saying it is meant to close a dangerous gap in state law: “with a three‑D printer that cost a few hundred and a digital file that can be downloaded online, someone can now manufacture an untraceable firearm at home, no background check, no serial number, and no accountability.” The discussion notes that under U.S. federal law, unlicensed individuals may produce firearms for personal noncommercial use without registering them or adding a serial number, often referred to as ghost guns. However, this is restricted by state laws and federal regulations against manufacturing items like silencers or machine guns, and against firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors. The article emphasizes that apart from some prohibited items, it is legal to use three‑D printers for this purpose under certain conditions, subject to state variations. The proposed safeguards would require the algorithm to be unbypassable, effectively outlawing firmware modification or gaining root access. In short, tinkering with your own hardware could be treated as a crime. The bills are framed as public safety measures, but the discussion warns they could push toward closed systems that require server authentication or proprietary software, turning open hardware into a controlled platform. The broader concern is about government or corporate control over what devices a person may own or modify, with potential for expanded restrictions through the attorney general’s broad authority to define blocked designs in the future. The debate touches on parallels to proposed and enacted “kill switches” and remote controls in other domains, and to the tension between innovation and control.

Do you want T Mobile to track your work performance, financial situation, health, personal preferences, and movements? Do you trust them to share your data with researchers or to personalize ads using your app data? Would you like to help T Mobile improve their products by sharing your data? Many of you likely answered no to these questions. However, T Mobile has automatically enabled these settings on all accounts, and you must manually disable them if you do not wish to participate.

The speaker recounts an experience with a brand-new European rental car in 2026 that introduced an eye-tracking feature aimed at preventing sleepy driving. After receiving the car, the speaker encountered a six-lane highway incident where the gas pedal stopped working. The dashboard displayed the message in English: “sit up straight. We can’t find your eyes.” The speaker, being short and naturally slouching, adjusted to sit upright, at which point the gas pedal began functioning again. However, the car had already slowed to a worryingly cautious pace, creating a potential traffic hazard. The vehicle then asked, “may I send you these results to a third party?” to which the speaker replied, “no.” The speaker questions who is monitoring the driving, who the supposed third party would be, and highlights the dangerous implications of a system that can disable gas power based on facial recognition. The speaker argues that there are numerous dangerous scenarios if control is lost, such as pulling out in front of a semi-truck or crossing a railroad track. They contend that the stated rationale for the feature is to combat sleepy drivers, but they critique the premise itself: if a driver falls asleep, they would not be pressing the gas pedal fully; they would likely ease off or relax, not keep their foot down. The speaker suggests disabling cruise control as a simpler, safer alternative to relying on eye-tracking. Even when considering the purported safety benefits for sleepy drivers, the speaker maintains that the concept is dangerous and poorly conceived. Overall, the speaker rejects the notion of requiring eye-tracking for the car to operate, describing it as a dangerous and stupid idea independent of its claimed intent to mitigate sleep-related driving issues. The account emphasizes immediate safety risks, questions about data sharing and surveillance, and calls for alternative solutions to address drowsy driving without compromising control of the vehicle.

The World Economic Forum's biggest fear is people who refuse to comply and make their own decisions. They want to control your life and restrict your movement, behavior, and decisions through a digital process. They can easily do this with a click of a button.

- In March 2026, the EPA issued an emergency waiver allowing E15 gasoline (15% corn ethanol) to be sold nationwide year-round; Congress is attempting to make that permanent. - E15 is illegal to put in cars built before 2001 because ethanol is a powerful solvent that eats rubber fuel lines, corrodes steel gas tanks from the inside, and attacks water, causing engine choking. - Mechanics note that the alcohol scrubs years of varnish off the tank, clogs filters, and causes vapor lock. - Automakers warn that using E15 could cost drivers up to $4,000 in per-vehicle repairs. - The corn ethanol lobby allegedly spent $187,000,000 buying influence in Washington and has received over $20,000,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies to promote ethanol, which the speaker claims waters down gasoline and increases production costs. - The speaker asserts this is a pipeline and mandate fuel that slowly destroys older independent vehicles, making repairs expensive and forcing consumers to buy new cars, which allegedly come with AI mandatory kill switches.

Biden's push for electric vehicles has resulted in auto workers losing their jobs and car dealerships struggling to sell unwanted EVs. Despite the lack of demand, those who do buy electric vehicles to save on gas are now being targeted by the government for more revenue. This includes placing tracking devices on their cars to monitor their usage. It's frustrating how liberals can support such policies.

On June 8, 2024, Brian's 2023 Toyota Corolla GR caught fire unexpectedly. Although some damages were covered by insurance, Toyota denied his warranty claim, citing data showing he had driven over 85 mph, unrelated to the fire. A Mozilla Foundation report revealed that all 25 major car brands, including Toyota, fail to meet privacy standards, collecting sensitive data like health and driving habits. Car companies are selling this data to insurance firms, impacting premiums without drivers' knowledge. Many drivers are unaware their data is shared with third parties, often hidden in legal jargon. Critics call for clearer consumer protections, emphasizing the need for transparency in data collection practices and its implications on insurance costs. While data can improve services, the potential for misuse is significant, raising concerns about consumer rights in the evolving auto industry.

They have complete access to your device and can manipulate it as they please. Although you technically own the device because you paid for it, corporations and governments are gaining more control over it. We are living in a world where we bear the burden of work, taxes, and expenses, yet our ownership diminishes. The previous generation is acutely aware of this reality.

Speaker rents a car for repairs and asserts, 'These new cars are cell phone towers. That's what that is right there. See that?' and, 'you can't turn them off.' They suggest buying an old car to avoid being blasted with radio frequencies the entire time checked out, like a cell phone tower while you're driving around. 'So when they ask where all the chat GPT information is coming from, guess what? Here you go.' They mention 'GSR speed assist app.' 'This tracks your speed so that Google gets your information the entire time,' and claim, 'Google knows and they can get send you a ticket.' Finally, 'In the newer cars, you're not allowed to turn this LTE off. You can turn off Bluetooth and Wi Fi, but you can't turn off your car being a cell phone.'