reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: What about the public attitude held by millions of everyday Americans? All I've got on a computer is pictures of my family, CCTV cameras that are prevalent in a ton of American cities and overseas capitals. Those cameras are your friend if you're innocent and have nothing to hide. Speaker 1: Well, I'd say that's very much what the average Chinese citizen believed or perhaps even still to this day believes. But we see how these same technologies are being applied to create what they call the social credit system. If any of these family photos, if any of your activities online, if your purchases, if your associations, if your friends are in any way different from what the government or the powers that be of the moment would like them to be, you're no longer able to purchase train tickets. You're no longer able to board an airplane. You may not be able to get a passport. You may not be eligible for a job. You might not be able to work for the government. All of these things are increasingly being created and programmed and decided by algorithms, and those algorithms are fueled by precisely the innocent data that our devices are creating all of the time constantly, invisibly, quietly right now. Our devices are casting all of these records that we do not see being created, that in aggregate seem very innocent. Even if you can't see the content of these communications, the activity records, what the government calls metadata, which they argue they do not need a warrant to collect, tells the whole story. And these activity records are being created and shared and collected and intercepted constantly by companies and governments. And ultimately it means as they sell these, as they trade these, as they make their businesses on the backs of these records, what they are selling is not information, what they are selling is us. They're selling our future. They're selling our past. They are selling our history, our identity, and ultimately, they are stealing our power.

I believe the privacy of the people in this country is being violated. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are taking all of our private information, and we have no idea what information they possess. We don't know the extent of their knowledge about our personal lives.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of searches of Americans' private communications are conducted without a warrant. This violates citizens' constitutional rights. The FBI claims they will fix the problem internally, but the number of illegal searches keeps increasing. It seems like the FBI only wants to avoid getting caught.

The transcript traces the origins, scope, and controversy surrounding the Patriot Act in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It explains that the reforms were designed to prevent another terrorist attack by granting vast new powers to U.S. intelligence agencies, notably increasing the NSA’s access to Internet records, expanding phone tapping capabilities, and enabling greater sharing of intelligence information. The act was presented as a step toward defeating terrorism while protecting constitutional rights. It then notes that the law’s authors recognized a fine line between privacy and national security, a line that Snowden’s revelations disrupted. Snowden showed that the government “unreasonably intrude into the private lives of ordinary citizens, individuals who have never been suspected of any wrongdoing or criminal activity.” The mass-surveillance debate intensified after Snowden exposed that the Patriot Act was secretly being used to justify the collection of phone records for millions of Americans. The public alarm centered on the claim that “Right now, in America, someone is keeping a record of every call you make, who you call and who calls you, when you talked, and for how long,” with such records stored for years and obtainable without the knowledge of the individuals. The narrative then moves to the period immediately after 9/11. Congress, shocked and in a hurry, received the Patriot Act—a 342-page document. The attorney general, John Ashcroft, urged Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill within a week. It is asserted that “Virtually no one in this chamber have any idea what's in that bill” and that “It's only the constitution. It's only individual liberty at stake.” The act was signed into law three days after its introduction. The discussion highlights provisions that appeared harmless but were consequential, especially section 215. Proponents claimed it would help the FBI find the bad guys; however, more than a decade later, the NSA and FBI were “misusing section two fifteen to sweep up the information of ordinary US citizens.” Section 215 allowed the government to collect tangible things relevant to an authorized investigation, and the government later claimed that “the records of every phone call you make now and in the future are a relevant tangible thing.” This broad interpretation extended beyond suspected terrorists. Finally, the account notes that most members of Congress did not know the law was being misused, and that the program was overseen by a secret court where everything is classified. It was this secret court, not Congress or the public, that decided that phone records were to be accessible, framing the controversy around secrecy and the expansion of surveillance powers.

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.

At the Tucson airport, a sign indicates that non-US citizens without passports should enter a specific line. Surprisingly, TSA allows an arrest warrant as a valid form of ID for illegal aliens. If an arrest warrant can secure a domestic flight for them, it raises the question of why it can't lead to their arrest. As a member of Congress with TSA pre-check, I must verify my identity. If my airline ticket lists my name as Wesley J Hunt, I cannot board the plane, highlighting the inconsistency in the system.

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.

The UK government plans to upload all 45 million passport photos into a police facial recognition database without consent or legislation. This move allows the police to access the passport database and other custody images, creating the largest biometric database for UK policing. However, this expansion of facial recognition surveillance is seen as intrusive and inaccurate, posing a threat to the public's right to privacy. Big Brother Watch is actively opposing this technology, emphasizing the need to protect individual privacy rights.

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking access to millions of IRS taxpayer records through an automated computer system. This is concerning because taxpayer records are highly secure, and misuse can result in a felony conviction. Previously, agencies needed to justify requests for specific taxpayer records related to a crime. This new system would allow access to millions of records without justification, including those of documented citizens. The rationale is to find undocumented immigrants, but this could penalize those who pay taxes in good faith. The first IRS general counsel quit due to legal and ethical concerns, and his replacement was forced out for refusing to grant access to 7,000,000 records without proper justification. There are fears that a more pliable replacement will risk taxpayer data. Given past government database hacks, aggregating this data creates a target for foreign adversaries. This policy is viewed as dangerous, an abuse of taxpayer records, and a step towards authoritarianism.

Speaker 0 argues against using TSA scanners when traveling. They state that epic.org reached out to TSA members and asked for studies on the scanners, but there are no safety studies. They claim TSA workers are contracting large illnesses, “the big C,” because they work next to the scanners and because those scanners are operating on five g and x-rays. They assert that passengers are x-rayed without a blanket every time, that millimeter waves cook people, and that the scanners allow viewing people nude. They advise travelers not to go through TSA scanners, and to opt for a pat-down instead. They claim that if enough people refuse to go through the scanners, the program would end. They recount the origin story: an alleged Al Qaeda individual who came from Amsterdam to Detroit, leading to the rollout of scanners across America, with the requirement to remove shoes, belts, waters, valuables, and anything else. They imply that this incident sparked the widespread adoption of scanners nationwide. The speaker emphasizes that anybody told they need to go through these scanners should refuse and request a pat-down, labeling the scanners as “goofy.” They reiterate the call to opt out and not participate in the scanner process, presenting the narrative as a justification for avoiding the scanners.

The United States has recently ruled that border patrol agents can enter any home within 100 miles of the US border without a warrant. This affects nearly 2 out of 3 people who live within this border zone, including major cities like Los Angeles, New York, and the entire state of Florida. Additionally, border patrol considers international airports as borders, further limiting constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's decision has stripped 216 million Americans of their 4th amendment right, allowing warrantless searches of homes, vehicles, buses, and trains. It's important to note that this ruling doesn't just impact immigrants, but all individuals within the 100-mile border zone.

All collected data, including communication content like phone calls, emails, and text messages, can be searched without a warrant based on probable cause. This violates the Constitution and leads to constitutional violations. Reforms are needed to stop this practice.

The speakers discuss the breadth and invasiveness of data that can be accessed from a person’s phone, highlighting how such information can be retrieved and used in investigations. They enumerate the various types of data that can be obtained: call logs, chats, cookies, device notifications, emails, instant messages, and passwords. They note that deleted conversations on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal can also be accessible, as well as Millie’s deleted web browsing history. The speakers emphasize that contact information for everyone the person has spoken to, and the locations of all their calls, can be seen. They point out that information about other people’s phone numbers can be accessed, and they ask whether those people’s messages to the person can be seen, with the answer being yes. The police can obtain information about people the person has contacted, not only in relation to any arrest that might have occurred but also concerning individuals who may have contacted the person securely (for example, through Signal) about work. The speakers express that the most worrying aspect is that this kind of data access can happen at the time of arrest, even when charges are never brought, and that it can also apply to witnesses and victims. They argue that there appears to be little clarity about deletion, implying that the police can effectively do what they want when they obtain someone’s phone, which they describe as a scary amount of information. Despite the fear, they also acknowledge that this data is extremely useful for the police in investigations. A central concern raised is the current lack of a required warrant to obtain any of this information. They argue that there should be a degree of checks and balances to determine whether it is proportionate to access such data in a given case, stating that in some cases it may not be necessary to access a person’s phone. Overall, the discussion highlights a tension between the usefulness of comprehensive digital data for investigative purposes and the potential for overreach or abuse in the absence of warrants or robust safeguards.

Some people are concerned about data mining and privacy issues, particularly with ChoicePoint, a company created by Republicans. ChoicePoint has access to vast amounts of personal data, including phone numbers, medical records, DNA, and more. They have been involved in controversial activities, such as providing inaccurate voter lists in Florida and falsifying DNA evidence in rape cases. This privatized spy function raises constitutional concerns and blurs the line between government and private surveillance. George Orwell would find this situation concerning.

Vaccine passports represent a significant shift in how we define freedom in society. Instead of being able to do anything not prohibited by law, our freedom will be limited to what an algorithm allows us to do through our smartphones. This marks a fundamental change in how we understand and exercise our freedoms.

Illegals at the Miami airport can use the CBP one app as a valid ID to board planes in the US. The app allows migrants to claim asylum and enter the country, even if they have committed crimes. The app does not require photos and does not store biographical information. This raises concerns as illegal immigrants from countries on terror watch lists can use this process, while American citizens are required to have a real ID by 2025 to board flights. This discrepancy is difficult to justify.

The CBP One app, used by migrants claiming asylum, is now accepted at TSA checkpoints in the Miami airport's Delta terminal as valid ID for boarding planes. The CBP One app was intended to validate non-US citizen travel documentation when a traveler lacks acceptable ID. According to the speaker, migrants can enter any information into the app, even those wanted for crimes. Photos are optional, and biographical information is not stored. The speaker questions how people from terror watch list countries can use this process. The speaker contrasts this with the Real ID requirement for Americans by May 2025 to board flights. They question how illegal immigrants can board planes with unverifiable information while Americans face stricter ID requirements.

The Biden administration is allowing migrants to bypass ID checks at airports, raising security concerns. A recent DHS report reveals that illegal migrants can use the CBP One app instead of traditional identification, even choosing whether to allow officers to take their photo. This practice may inadvertently increase national security risks, according to the inspector general. A DHS spokesperson disputed the report, claiming it lacks context. However, the national security director for air marshals emphasized that unvetted individuals on flights pose a threat, as they can repeatedly fly without proper identification, often on taxpayer-funded flights.

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.

The discussion centers on why data centers are expanding so rapidly despite the claim that existing phone and television usage already relies on server storage. Participants cite large-scale developments such as Loudoun County, Virginia’s “never-ending” complexes and a proposed 40,000-acre AI data center campus in Utah described as “two and a half times larger than Manhattan,” with claims that Utah lacks water and that the data center would require more than double the current energy consumption of the entire state of Utah. The question raised is what is really happening behind this scale and where the collected information goes. One participant links the projects to “intel” involvement, pointing to companies said to include Palantir, Nvidia, and Abraxas, and to allegations that some of these firms received CIA investments to start, including staffing by retired senior CIA officers. This leads to questions about whether “the CIA [is] spying on our own people,” referencing Edward Snowden’s revelations and mentioning NSA’s and CIA’s surveillance of Americans. The conversation states that NSA’s charter includes a restriction that it may not spy on Americans, and notes that Snowden’s disclosures are described as the reason people “wouldn’t have any idea” without them. The Utah compound is described with a claim that it has enough memory storage for every phone call, every email, and every text message from every American for the next 500 years, prompting questions about why that amount of storage exists and why such facilities are “everywhere,” and what information they are collecting. The conversation shifts to personal protection, with a suggestion that it is “almost impossible now” and a recommendation that the only way to protect yourself is to “own no technology at all,” referencing Eric Rudolph or the Unabomber as examples. The participant further claims that governments and intelligence agencies are “scooping up” data and holding it, and contrasts earlier post-9/11 practices—where obtaining information required federal judges to approve warrants—with newer methods. The transcript claims that instead of warrants, the government can use “national security letters” to require providers to turn over all information on a named person, or can query the data centers directly by inputting a name so that information “pops up,” describing a lack of legal protections and stating that these actions are “legal now.” It concludes by naming the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 (and National Defense Act of 2016 as referenced in the transcript) as the change that made this legal.

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.

The RESTRICT Act is compared to the Patriot Act 2.0 for the Internet, as it would make it illegal for Americans to use TikTok. It grants unelected bureaucrats in the Department of Commerce unrestricted access to our personal data, including computers, phones, security cameras, browsing history, and payment applications. The act eliminates transparency and criminalizes the use of VPNs, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison and $1,000,000 in fines. Disturbingly, there is no opportunity to challenge this in court. This poses a direct threat to our constitutional rights, freedoms, and democracy. It is crucial that we prevent its passage.

You don't need a mandatory digital ID to live your life, travel, or buy things. The push for a global digital ID is driven by those who want to monitor your every move and control your actions. With a managed security digital ID, authorities can use excuses like a viral pandemic to enforce vaccinations or restrict your movements. Central bank digital currencies eliminate the need for traditional banks and allow for precise tracking of your purchases and interactions. Algorithms could be used to limit your access to goods based on distance or other criteria. The control of this database and its algorithms could be in the hands of malicious individuals, making it impossible to resist their restrictions. This loss of freedom is unacceptable.

The RESTRICT Act is compared to the Patriot Act 2.0 for the Internet, as it would give unelected bureaucrats in the department of commerce unrestricted access to our personal data. This includes information from our computers, phones, security cameras, browsing history, and payment applications. The act eliminates transparency and criminalizes the use of VPNs, with severe penalties of up to 20 years in prison and hefty fines. Disturbingly, there is no opportunity to challenge this in court. This poses a direct threat to our constitutional rights, freedoms, and democracy. It is crucial that we prevent this from being passed.

Digital ID: what could possibly go wrong? The transcript recalls Kirstyama’s recent visit to India to meet Modi and top officials, promoting India’s nationwide digital ID system called Aadhaar. It then presents a provocative claim: cyber criminals are reportedly saying they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—815,000,000 people's details, including names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more—and are allegedly selling the database for $80,000 at a time. It notes uncertainty about verification but says the story is circulating. The speaker emphasizes concerns about security and the practicality of such a system: if every aspect of a person’s life—passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal record, bank details, all transactions, bills, travel and flight records, vehicle taxes, council taxes, hospital appointments, arrest records, and other personal data—are stored in one place, how safe and secure can it be? The question is raised of whether the people running these systems can be trusted to protect data, given ongoing data breaches and thefts, including several large incidents in the past year within the country. There’s a rhetorical comparison to India’s example, suggesting that this is a test case for the security of a highly centralized digital ID system. The speaker notes that StarMove had previously used India as an example of how well such a system could work, implying skepticism about that portrayal with the closing line, “The ironic thing is that StarMove was just out there holding them up as an example of how well the system could work. Yeah. Right, Kia. We believe you.” Key points: - Aadhaar is India’s nationwide digital ID system. - Alleged theft of 815,000,000 Aadhaar records, with claims of selling the data in chunks for $80,000; verification of this claim is uncertain. - The aggregation of extensive personal data in one system raises concerns about security and trust in the guardians of the data. - Data breaches are frequent, including notable incidents in the past year. - The India example is presented as a cautionary reference, contrasting with prior praise from StarMove.