reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Unbelievable news from Europe: the mainstream media is ignoring the rollout of a tyrannical government move. This development could have massive implications for families, as it is expected to reach the United States soon. The European parliament has voted to implement a digital identification program that will track and verify personal information, medical records, and movements through GPS. This program will soon take over everyone's lives in the European Union. The Federal Reserve and the Biden administration are actively working on a similar initiative for the United States.

In East London, police use facial recognition cameras, leading to a man being fined for covering his face. The legality and privacy concerns of this technology are debated, with opponents fearing widespread surveillance. Police defend the use of facial recognition as a tool for safety and effectiveness, promising safeguards and reviews.

Individuals enrolling in TSA PreCheck or Global Entry sign a release granting the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI unrestricted, warrantless access to all their personal data. This includes health records, physical and mental information, social media, communications, and court history. This access is indefinite. People are giving up their rights permanently for the convenience of faster passage through security. This sweeping surrender of privacy is in the fine print that few people read.

In 10 years, drones could use facial recognition for surveillance, posing privacy concerns. TSA now takes photos at airports, raising questions about government data collection. The erosion of liberty and government intrusion is a growing concern, with dissent being targeted in the United States.

Australian cities are implementing smart city programs with invasive technology like facial recognition cameras, license plate readers, and smart devices connected to wireless networks. However, this raises concerns about privacy and surveillance. The infrastructure for future lockdowns is being established, and by surrendering our data, we are allowing our behavior to be monitored and potentially turned into a social credit score. Central bank digital currencies will further restrict our spending without approval, and digital IDs will become mandatory for accessing government services, traveling, healthcare, and the internet. Many countries, including Canada and Scotland, are already implementing these systems. Australians need to wake up to the reality of this technocratic future before it becomes dystopian.

The UK's Online Safety Act, similar to laws in Australia and proposed legislation in the US (COSA), aims to regulate online content, ostensibly to protect children. Critics argue it grants the government power to define and remove "harmful" content, potentially censoring dissent. The act pressures encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal to monitor user chats, possibly requiring the breaking of end-to-end encryption. Age verification measures, including face scans and government IDs, are required for sites with adult content, but could expand to all user-generated platforms, raising privacy concerns. Critics argue criminals will bypass the law while law-abiding citizens face surveillance and censorship. The act allows Ofcom to order takedowns or block websites, granting the government indirect control over online speech. The UK government is reportedly using the act to censor protest footage. Concerns are raised about politicians being targeted for questioning government policies. Similar legislation is underway in the US, and the UN aims to implement a global social credit system. Australia will implement age checks from search engines. Apple has patented technology to identify people by body parts, even when their face isn't visible. These steps are seen as incremental moves towards a digital gulag, with governments controlling online activity and purchases.

The digital ID provides government the ability to track, analyze, predict, and control a person's private activities. It is the antithesis of individual freedom and will not require an implantable chip as many have feared for decades. Evidence clearly shows that biometrics such as fingerprints and facial scans will do the job much more efficiently. And the aftermath of the COVID lockdown shows us how it will be deployed. During the COVID era, governments said that masks were recommended, while private companies said no mask, no entry. And the public overwhelmingly complied, but not with an overreaching government. They complied with the grocery store to buy food, the airlines to travel, and their own banks to access money. Looking back, it is quite clear. The COVID lockdowns provided an opportunity to beta test digital ID compliance through private company mandates and helps normalize the use of QR scans and facial pics for entry into private businesses. And it proved to be a success. Now we are seeing the same techniques being used with the rollout of the digital ID. The gold standard for biometric regulation was written in 2008 as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and is being replicated all over The United States. It mandates that private entities obtain written consent before collecting biometrics, disclose their policies, and destroy data after a set period. And most importantly, it exempts government entities entirely, allowing state and federal government to collect and utilize biometric data while passing the liability to private corporations. These laws have been met with over a thousand class action lawsuits since 2015, which resulted in the standardization of consent prompts in apps and services, such as a firm's biometric consent, which now states by clicking accept or proceeding, you consent to collection of biometric data. Click a button and you're in the new system. If government were to mandate the digital ID, it would predictably ignite mass protest. We can see this happening today in The UK. The United States will avoid this by utilizing the private sector in what appears to be voluntary action. The FBI's Clearview AI has harvested over 30,000,000,000 faces from social media. And because Clearview is technically a private company, the FBI has access to all this without the need for asking. In over 43 states, the Department of Motor Vehicles have sold driver's license photos to private firms who resold to local police for facial recognition. The government doesn't need to mandate biometric ID, which would most likely be considered a violation of American rights. And so it outsources the mandate to private companies who are legally required to get consent, while the government is free to collect and utilize this data under legal immunity. Just like the COVID era, you will be free to give consent. But if you choose not to, you will have to leave the reservation and find a way to fend for yourself. Greg Reiss reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreese.substack.com.

Speaker 0 describes a facial recognition van; a man covered his face to avoid being caught by police cameras. Police stopped him and photographed him anyway. There’s claimed to be no law against covering one’s face, and Speaker 0 says, “you let him go then.” Speaker 1 counters, suggesting it might be because “I don’t consent to being on there,” calling it “government overreach.” Speaker 0 continues: “Don't cover my face. Don't push me over when I'm walking down the street.” The police deemed this disorderly behavior and issued a fine; Speaker 0 shows a £90 fine and notes that “there you go. Look at that.” He asserts that the man has a right to cover his face and can walk away. Speaker 1 adds: “We live in a country which is free. We don’t have to carry ID. So we don’t live in a state where the police have the right to see your ID willy nilly. This takes away my freedom because you're IDing me without asking.”

In China, a social credit score system is already in place, using facial recognition to monitor behavior like jaywalking and deduct money from accounts. This system can identify gender, estimate age, and even recognize car models. Implementation in Western nations could lead to invasive monitoring of personal habits and preferences, impacting individuals' social credit scores. This reality is already present in some places, highlighting the need for awareness and consideration of potential consequences.

Your wake up call. The British government is pushing forward with plans for a national digital ID system. They've called it the Brit card and if that name doesn't send a chill down your spine you have not been paying attention. This is about building a centralized state controlled digital identity system that could be used to link your finances, your medical history, your travel movements, your social media activity, even your social activity in real life and more. It's quite frankly a digital dog tag and once it's clipped around your neck, you will not be able to take it off. There are active conversations now about linking spending capabilities to your digital identity. That means if your ID is flagged, limited or suspended, I don't know because maybe you said some hurt words on social media, that will mean you can't access your own money.

Age verification is a normalisation of identification, the introduction of digital surveillance, and the end of privacy. It is described as giving the state and corporations excessive powers and creating more KYC honeypots. The speaker says we should fight that because it will start creeping into any centralised large social media website.

They're rolling out digital ID even when people don't want it? In The UK, over 2,000,000 people said no. We don't want it. The government's response? We're gonna do it anyway. And now the line is no digital ID, no jobs. They said you will not be able to work in The United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It's as simple as that. Just a reminder, pilot programs always start somewhere and then scale to the rest of the world. Today, it's The UK. Tomorrow, it's where you live. They will market it as if it's for your convenience or your safety, like they are doing now by saying it's to tackle illegal immigration. But once your likelihood is tied to a QR code or a government app, your freedoms can be taken away with the flip of a switch. Now it's just for a job. Soon it will be banking, travel, grocery shopping. You will be completely under control.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the UK government’s rollout of a national digital ID, presenting it as imminent and not merely a future possibility. Speaker 0 states that the government is rolling out a national digital ID in the UK and asserts it is happening now, not something to consider for someday. Speaker 1 reinforces the opposition to digital ID, urging a rejection of it. Speaker 0 reports that they are outside BBC Broadcasting House for a digital ID protest, framing the event as a mobilization against the rollout. Speaker 1 warns that saying yes to digital ID could lead to an inability to say no to the government ever again, not just to the current government but to future ones unknown. Speaker 0 recalls assurances that national ID cards were dead and not representative of Britain, noting that the modern version is not a plastic card but a “live connection.” Speaker 1 calls on people to raise their heads out of complacency, asserting that humans are not data and emphasizing that the issue concerns everyone’s freedom. Speaker 0 contends that what is happening is an attempt to funnel humanity into being a number, implying a loss of individuality. Speaker 1 describes a future where the ability to earn, move, buy, or speak is not a right but a permission, and permissions can be switched off, framing this as a consequence of Digital ID. Speaker 0 summarizes the topic as Digital ID: how it started, how it is being sold, and what life looks like behind a biometric paper.

The transcript argues that a digital ID system would allow the government to track, analyze, predict, and control private activities, describing it as the antithesis of individual freedom. It asserts that an implantable chip is not required, and that biometrics like fingerprints and facial scans would work more efficiently. It references the COVID-19 lockdown as a demonstration of how such systems could be deployed, noting that masks were recommended by authorities while private businesses enacted entry restrictions, and the public largely complied with private mandates to access essentials like groceries, travel, and banking. The claim is that these private mandates served as a beta test for digital ID compliance, normalizing the use of QR scans and facial recognition for entry into private businesses, and that this was deemed a success. The speaker describes the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008 as the gold standard for biometric regulation, saying it is being replicated across the United States. The Act allegedly requires private entities to obtain written consent before collecting biometrics, disclose policies, and destroy data after a set period, while exempting government entities from such restrictions. It is claimed that these laws have resulted in over a thousand class-action lawsuits since 2015, which purportedly led to standardized biometric consent prompts in apps and services, such as consent statements like by clicking accept or proceeding, you consent to collection of biometric data. The argument continues with a warning that a government-mandated digital ID would likely provoke mass protest, citing the UK as an example. It contends the United States will avoid a direct mandate by outsourcing to the private sector, creating a system that appears voluntary. It is claimed that the FBI’s Clearview AI has harvested over 30,000,000,000 faces from social media, and that because Clearview is a private company, the FBI can access this data without direct government action. It is asserted that in over 43 states, Department of Motor Vehicles offices have sold driver’s license photos to private firms that resold them to local police for facial recognition, implying that the government can collect and use biometric data via private entities under legal immunity, without a formal mandate. The piece concludes that, as with COVID-era practices, individuals will be free to give consent, but if they choose not to, they will be constrained. The report is presented by Greg Reiss. It notes that The Reiss Report is fully funded by Substack subscribers, inviting readers to subscribe at gregreese.substack.com.

Age verification is a normalization of identification. It's the introduction of digital surveillance. It's the end of privacy, and it's giving the state and corporation excessive powers and creating more KYC honeypots. The speaker thinks we should fight that because we're now going to start seeing this crippling in to any centralised, large social media website.

The speaker discusses a program called VERIFAST, describing it as facial recognition that requires users to scan their face when applying for an apartment or buying a house. They claim you must move your face left and right and have the biometrics uploaded into a database in order to rent or purchase a property. The speaker notes that in Arizona, many apartment complexes are rolling this out, questioning why there is a need to scan faces and suggesting it’s concerning that politicians or people who defend them are not being scanned while ordinary citizens are. The speaker also mentions Discord as discussing this with kids, calling that sickening, and claims Etsy is doing something similar to process payments, requiring a face scan that involves moving the face left and right. They compare the situation to a concept from the “mark of the beast,” expressing concern that voluntary consent without objection could lead to a troubling future. The speaker urges listeners to look up VERIFAST and to resist if someone tries to impose this practice, using a defensive, PG-friendly phrasing. Overall, the main points are: - VERIFAST is described as a facial-recognition system requiring a face scan with left-right movement to access housing-related transactions, with biometrics uploaded to a database. - In Arizona, the technology is allegedly being rolled out by apartment complexes. - The speaker questions why politicians’ faces aren’t scanned and highlights perceived inconsistencies in who is subjected to the system. - Discord is mentioned as discussing this issue with children, and Etsy is claimed to be implementing a similar facial-scan payment verification. - The speaker draws a controversial parallel to the mark of the beast and warns that consent without vocal objection could lead to a troubling future. - listeners are urged to look up VERIFAST and push back if pressured to participate.

I'm at Reagan National Airport and just went through security. TSA has a new system where you insert your driver's license into a scanner, then they require you to use facial recognition. When I tried to opt out and use just my license, they said it's not possible once you start the process. The manager admitted it doesn't make sense but claimed it's a new policy. I argued that I shouldn't be forced into facial recognition after being told to use the scanner. This feels like an attempt to eliminate using just a driver's license. This is big government overreach, setting up a national surveillance system using our faces and airports. I will continue to fight against this.

Governments worldwide are following a totalitarian control agenda outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" document. The UK government, in particular, is leading the charge, secretly ordering Apple to create a backdoor for encrypted iCloud data, affecting 2 billion users worldwide. This order, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, is a global privacy nightmare. Apple faces a difficult choice: comply and weaken encryption globally, or withdraw services from the UK. This move ties into a broader censorship agenda, including the UK's Online Safety Bill and the EU's Digital Services Act, which criminalize dissent and censor free speech. Governments are using tech companies as enforcement arms, threatening citizens for online criticism, highlighting a war on encryption and control.

TSA is now using facial recognition software to take photos of travelers, which can be opted out of. However, agents often pressure individuals to comply. This morning in Newark, I clearly stated my desire to opt out, but an agent insisted I had to have my photo taken. I had to go to another agent to formally refuse. It's frustrating that this has become the norm. Additionally, there are concerns about the government's push for a nationwide real ID, which would create a federal database of personal information. The combination of mandatory facial recognition and the real ID initiative raises significant privacy issues for travelers.

Australian cities are implementing smart city programs with invasive technologies like facial recognition cameras, license plate readers, and smart appliances. This raises concerns about privacy and surveillance. The speaker warns that these technologies are being used to track people's movements and monitor their behavior, potentially leading to a social credit score system. They also mention the future implementation of digital ID, which could restrict access to government services, travel, healthcare, and the internet. The speaker believes that Australians are unaware of the implications and are heading towards a dystopian digital future.

The UK plans to imprison citizens for up to 15 years for viewing what the government labels as far-right propaganda online. This raises significant questions about the control over online algorithms and the consequences of inadvertently encountering such content. Who defines what constitutes far-right propaganda? Given current standards, even posts by figures like JK Rowling could be classified this way. Concerns also arise about the enforcement of these laws, reminiscent of existing social media regulations on hate speech and misinformation. The situation seems to be escalating rapidly, prompting a call for awareness and support from those observing these developments.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the motivations behind expanding digital surveillance, warning that concerns go beyond merely watching current behavior. Speaker 1 argues that many surveillance actors are interested in predictive analytics and predictive policing, not just monitoring present actions. Based on current and past behavior, these systems aim to determine future actions, and in predictive policing could lead to court-ordered treatment or house arrest to prevent crimes before they occur. They reference PredPol (later rebranded) as a notable example, describing it as less accurate than a coin toss and noting that people were deprived of liberty due to an dangerously flawed algorithm. They also point to facial recognition algorithms in the UK, which have been shown to be hugely inaccurate, yet vendors remain unchanged despite demonstrated inaccuracies. The underlying concern is that constant surveillance could induce obedience, since any potential future action could be used against a person, even if they are not currently doing anything wrong. The speakers quote Larry Ellison of Oracle at an Oracle shareholder meeting, who allegedly said that surveillance will record everything and citizens will be on their best behavior because they “have to,” effectively linking surveillance to governance over behavior. Speaker 0 adds that Donald Trump’s circle includes tech figures who are not friends of freedom and liberty, naming Larry Ellison as leading that faction, which amplifies the concern about the direction of policy and governance under such influence. Speaker 1 broadens the critique to globalist networks, noting that many players in surveillance and tech also appear on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, a closed-door forum often associated with global policy coordination. They argue that some individuals in this network have attempted to frame libertarian rhetoric while pursuing oligarchic aims, including the idea that “the free market is for losers” and that monopolies are the path to wealth. The discussion emphasizes that the same actors may push policies under the banner of efficiency or libertarian appeal, especially as AI advances, and that vigilance is necessary to prevent a slide toward pervasive, technocratic governance. Speaker 1 concludes that, with AI and related technologies, the risk is that these strategies could be packaged and sold in a way that appeals to factions who opposed such policies in the past, making public vigilance crucial to prevent a repeat of dystopian outcomes.