reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Since 2013, mobile devices are now the primary focus, with smartphones constantly emitting signals to cell towers even when idle. These signals contain unique identifiers like IMEI and IMSI, allowing tracking of a user's movements. Companies store this data for unknown purposes, leading to privacy concerns and mass surveillance through bulk collection.

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

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.

Smartphones are constantly connected to cellular towers, even when the screen is off. They emit radio frequency emissions to communicate with the nearest tower, creating a record of the phone's presence. This data is stored and can be accessed by companies and governments for surveillance purposes. The problem is that users have no control or visibility over what their phones are doing at any given time. Hacking is a common method used to gain access to devices, allowing attackers to control and collect personal information. Companies like Google and Facebook also collect and store user data, which can be accessed by governments. The lack of transparency and control over data collection poses a threat to privacy and individual power. Trust in technology is limited.

Speaker 1 outlines concerns about Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act of 2026, asserting that if it becomes law, the Government of Canada will be able to secretly order Apple to build in a capability into its infrastructure to allow Canadian law enforcement and national security authorities to track every iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, and AirTag in real time. This capability would enable authorities to require Apple to confirm whether it provides any services to a user, and to obtain device identifiers for all devices used with those services. The process could involve going to a justice of the peace and obtaining an order without any requirement that a crime has been or will be committed, effectively mandating Apple to hand over moment-by-moment locations for all user devices. The speaker further notes that with that secret order, Apple would be compelled to provide the moment-by-moment locations of all devices associated with a user, based on the digital ID tied to iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPod, Apple TV, and AirTag. In addition, the order would require Apple to maintain location history for a full year, enabling cops to access that historical data as well. The overarching concern highlighted is whether such expansive powers—secret orders, real-time tracking, access to device identifiers and services, and a year-long location history—are desirable for Canadian police and law enforcement. Speaker 0 interjects with a prompting remark, inviting the audience to consider the implications and framing the discussion as a best attempt to evaluate the issue. The dialogue centers on the potential reach of government surveillance powers under the proposed act, the mechanisms by which these powers could be exercised (secret orders and judiciary involvement), and the practical consequences of requiring a tech company to reveal comprehensive location data and device identifiers without demonstrating a crime or imminent wrongdoing. The core issue presented is whether granting law enforcement such pervasive, real-time, and historical access to users’ device data aligns with acceptable governance and privacy standards in Canada.

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.

Your phone is not just a phone. It is the result of research that captures your attention, creating a power imbalance where you are unaware that you are being constantly monitored. They gather maximum information about you, surveilling you 24/7. In return, they know you so well that they can not only predict things about you but also manipulate your behavior. The internet of things will do the same.

Speaker 0 argues Canada introduced a bill allowing the minister to 'kick any Canadian citizen off the Internet to cut off their phone line, to turn off their phone.' 'If there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, the minister may prohibit a telecommunication service provider from providing any service to the specified person.' He warns 15.2 clause five makes the decision 'secret.' He says this signals 'Chinese Communist Party levels of government overreach.' He links the bill to the digital ID agenda and World Economic Forum's claim that digital identity is crucial for 'civic participation' and to UN 'Real ID' plans, noting Rand Paul tweets. He argues it could isolate people from paying bills, banking, or organizing politics, describing a potential 'digital gulag.' He advocates repeal in the US and hopes Canada defeats the agenda.

Cell phones are constantly sending data back to companies, even in the middle of the night. This information is used to create profiles on users and can be sold to other companies. Big tech companies like Facebook and Google are major offenders in this data collection. This poses a threat to privacy and security, as the data can be used for manipulation and control. It is crucial for Congress, state attorney generals, and the public to be educated about this issue and take action to regulate and prevent this invasion of privacy. Visit doctorjonesnaturals.com to support the broadcast and access quality products.

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.

The speaker opposes a FISA bill allowing the government to force anyone with access to communications to spy. This bill expands government surveillance powers significantly, potentially deputizing millions of Americans to spy without oversight. Supporters argue it targets foreigners, but Americans' communications can be collected if they interact with foreign targets. The bill lacks meaningful reforms and fails to address warrantless searches of Americans' communications under Section 702. Concerns include potential abuses and lack of oversight, especially with the broad expansion of surveillance authorities.

Speaker 0 describes smart meters as more than just electricity meters, asserting they function as personal surveillance devices. They claim smart meters sense when devices are turned on or off, measure watt usage (even for small devices like an electric toothbrush), and transmit that data wirelessly through neighbors’ meters to the power company. The data allegedly records electric consumption every minute, stored forever on computers the public cannot access, revealing when someone is home, asleep, on vacation, hosting visitors, using lamps or tools, running a business from home, or bootlegging energy off the grid. The speaker asserts this creates a vivid profile of private living patterns and indicates at-home presence on the night of a murder. The speaker contends this is not electrical metering but personal surveillance—a warrantless search daily. They claim personal life information travels from the meter to the power company, to the government, police, and insurance companies, and to anyone who partners with the power company to access it. The speaker further asserts that even without a direct data-sharing agreement, information can be intercepted via the wireless signal from the meter, because smart meters are radio transmitters. They identify a one-watt radio station licensed by the FCC as the transmitter sending all electrical life details to a data center. Examples are given of authorities in Ohio, Texas, and British Columbia using smart meter data to pinpoint marijuana grow houses, enforce business licenses, and punish private home activities, implying surveillance beyond what residents accept. The claim is made that the power company can sell personal life data to anyone, and that unusual power usage patterns can be used as probable cause to raid a home for growing marijuana or running a computer server without a license. The speaker describes this level of surveillance as “about as big brother as it gets,” with utility workers going door-to-door to install meters. They express a personal opinion that smart meters should be removed from homes, arguing that power companies cannot claim the right to install surveillance devices on residences. They equate smart meters with wiretapping and note wiretapping is illegal in all U.S. states and federal territories. The speaker asserts that allowing a smart meter is tantamount to walking around with a constant webcam on one’s head and accuses the industry of relying on implied consent—the idea that permission is granted if the utility can change the meter, even if residents don’t understand the scope of what’s happening. As a practical step, the speaker advises telling utilities not to change the meter, noting that older meters were billed successfully. They claim to have sent a certified letter denying installation of a smart meter and mention a copy of their letter is available in the video’s description for viewers to adapt. They state post office certified mail is used to obtain a receipt. The speaker concludes that if the meters are installed on every house in America, it would cease to be America.

Bill c eight can hand the government secret warrantless powers over Canadians' communications. This is a serious setback for privacy. The commissioner notes that privacy impact assessment is required by the treasury board directive but "it's not a legal obligation in the privacy act." He argues there should be "the opportunity for my office to give input before the fact" on major changes, including legislation, and that we are "not consulted on the specific pieces of legislation before they're tabled." He calls for "necessity and proportionality, strict criteria for the exercise of powers, and appropriate transparency and reporting mechanisms." The bill's provisions would allow "secret orders to disable an individual's telecommunications access" and "a minister compel data without judicial oversight," with concerns about secrecy and reporting, "reports to appropriate authorities" and "confidential reporting" to raise questions. He warns of "a parallel system" where data can be seized in secret with no redress.

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.

Speaker 0 asserts that there is no security whatsoever and that cybersecurity professionals face this problem daily. They state that while people are watching their phones, their phones are watching them. The operating system is designed to watch and listen to users, to know who their friends are, what is being said in text messages, and to listen at times. They claim that, although people look at their phones and it has many facilities, it is the world’s greatest spy device, designed as a spy device. Now, this.

The UK is attempting to demand that everyone download spyware that checks messages against a database of permissible content, setting a dangerous precedent for authoritarian regimes. Encryption either protects everyone, or it allows access to malicious actors, including governments and hackers. While child abuse is concerning, there are existing law enforcement tools and underfunded child welfare services that should be prioritized. It's important to ask how platforms enforce their terms of service against illegal use, but we are not an enforcement agency. We are a technology platform working to provide private communication. We need to check large tech companies on changing the norms for human communication to be completely surveilled. We're trying to keep the default of privacy that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a US visit, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity agents attempting a secret hire. The agents were interested in Telegram's open-source libraries and tried persuading the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools that the speaker believes would function as backdoors, potentially enabling government surveillance of Telegram users. The speaker also recounts personal experiences of being met by FBI agents at US airports and visited at their residence. They believe the FBI's interest was in gathering details about Telegram and establishing a relationship to better control the platform. While acknowledging the agents were doing their job, the speaker suggests this level of scrutiny made the US a less-than-ideal environment for running a privacy-focused social media platform.

A spyware called Pegasus can bypass phone security, access messages, photos, videos, microphone, camera, GPS, and more without detection. It infects iOS and Android through unknown vulnerabilities. NSO Group, an Israeli company, sells Pegasus to government clients worldwide. Leaked records show widespread abuse of Pegasus for surveillance. This invasion of privacy threatens democracy by enabling oppressive regimes to control populations. The software undermines the notion of phone security and poses a significant threat to personal privacy and freedom.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss what they call the TikTok ban bill, claiming it does more than just ban TikTok. They assert that foreign adversaries can change definitions at any time, listing a few already, but saying these definitions can change, enabling broader control. They warn that a group could be labeled as foreign adversaries, including doctors, by loosely defined terms. They claim the bill covers hardware technology such as modems, routers, home cameras, and virtual tech like VPNs, and bans them if they are manufactured by or used to contact and deal with foreign adversaries. They explain that a VPN is a virtual private network that allows users to search on Google while revealing data about them, and that using VPNs to bypass banned apps like TikTok becomes a criminal act under the bill, with penalties of a minimum imprisonment of twenty years and a minimum fine of $250,000 or $1,000,000 depending on whether the act was knowingly done to access banned content. The bill allegedly grants the federal government power to monitor any activity used by these suspected devices, whether virtual or not, effectively enabling twenty-four-seven monitoring of home activity without informing users. They list examples including routers, video games, streaming apps, smart thermostats, Ring cameras, and essentially anything that uses the internet, noting that cell phones and Alexa are included and that conversations could be used against individuals in court. They emphasize a particularly terrifying aspect: the bill would have the president appoint a secretary of communication, who then forms a group independently, without voter input, with meetings behind closed doors. This group could ban and deem anything inappropriate or a security risk at any moment, and could censor via access to instant messages, emails, texts, and anything that uses the internet. The speakers warn that if this passes, videos like theirs could disappear as apps like Telegram, which enable them to speak freely, might be removed. They question who in the government would decide what content is banned versus allowed content. They urge viewers to consider this deeply. In summary, they contend the bill could effectively ban anything the government deems inappropriate very quickly without warning, with ramifications including disrupting mass communication methods and enabling spying on home devices and cameras. They assert the bill is “that bad,” insisting they are not using hyperbole. Speaker 0 adds a metaphor about banning books from libraries and facing jail for accessing banned books, suggesting the bill represents a push for complete control and urging people to wake up and investigate further.

The issues identified, such as moral decay, privacy invasion, and competition with China, are acknowledged. However, the proposed solutions may worsen the problems. Legislative measures like the 4th Amendment is Not for Sale Act would better protect privacy. The current bill, while well-intentioned, seems to primarily benefit Facebook rather than the American people. It lacks necessary provisions, such as a sunset clause, and risks abuse similar to the FISA program. The bill targets American companies by threatening civil action against them for hosting TikTok, rather than addressing the actual company. Ultimately, it restricts Americans' access to software and websites. Therefore, this bill should be opposed due to its potential negative consequences.

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.

The speaker discusses the potential dangers of phone surveillance and the Pegasus software. They mention that the phone could be a portal to the CIA and criticize the lack of oversight and safeguards imposed by Congress. The speaker also highlights Israel's role in developing surveillance and AI technology. They mention instances where the Pegasus software has been used to target human rights activists and journalists. The speaker expresses concern about the tracking of digital information by foreign governments and emphasizes that the US government is equally sinister in tracking digital footprints without oversight. They caution listeners to be mindful of their online activities.