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.

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.

The chief strategy officer at Flock (a surveillance company) contacted the speaker on X after the speaker called him a tyrant. The speaker says they did not notice the message until two days ago and then posted a public rebuttal on X. The speaker also says they have tried for years to reduce unsolicited commentary, but now are expanding concerns about surveillance technology. The speaker frames their concerns as forward-looking rather than only reacting to one company. They say their “chief concern is not a camera” but that the U.S. has “quietly allowed a national intelligence collection network” to emerge, and that Flock uses “active deceit” and “steamrolling any opposition.” They compare the issue to the aftermath of the PRISM disclosures: many people came to accept that surveillance exists, but the speaker argues that social media or consumer tracking feels less present than physical devices—describing cameras on playgrounds, outside bedrooms, along streets, and other intimate settings—so the monitoring feels different. They argue Flock is an example of broader problems and state that other systems exist, including Alexa recording in living rooms. They distinguish Flock from “regular security cameras,” saying accountability for privately owned or publicly operated cameras typically involves identifiable ownership and processes (e.g., city departments), while Flock’s systems are centralized and the destination of data is unclear. They add that domestic customer service and addresses can create more accountability options than overseas ones, and that it is different from data pipelines like a local DVR. The speaker says Flock’s transparency claims are not the same as transparency, describing Flock as starting with deceit, avoiding answers, and calling Americans “terrorists” for wanting to know camera locations while the cameras can “know where you are at all times.” They say concerns have intensified because Flock is rapidly deploying sensors “before anyone notices,” and they emphasize scale (comparing 100 cameras to 83,000). They say “these are not just cameras,” arguing the most important part is the broader sensor function. They discuss Flock as “automated license plate readers” while asserting this is a “huge lie by omission.” The speaker claims the system provides an “electronic fingerprint” of vehicles and people, using high-resolution imaging and AI object detection to scan vehicles (including color and defects), identify bumper stickers, and associate faces with cars and passengers. They mention the existence of technology for lidar scans of vehicles and people, suggesting that systems could generate high-resolution 3D models of whatever is in front of the sensor, “certainly not all” devices—then note the speaker is guessing because of lack of openness about technical specifications. The speaker argues that because of secrecy, decisions are being made without full information and that risks include data breaches and exposure of biometric face data to foreign actors. They also raise scenarios involving U.S. military faces being cataloged, data cross-referencing with other breaches, and scanning of convoys and nuclear-weapons transport vehicles. They ask what happens with presidential motorcades and whether IDs from nearby phones could be captured. They claim cargo shipments onto military bases could be logged through high-resolution sensing and AI inference, but state that “where it goes” is unknown. They say Flock states it does not work with ICE and does not track illegal immigrants, which they interpret as cherry-picking which crimes to report. They argue accountability is impossible because Flock is a private company serving the government: they are not subject to FOIA, and legal action requires proving harm without knowing enough information. The speaker then calls for opposition rather than dialogue, including treating Flock as a “catalyst” for broader conversation about surveillance technologies. They recommend “knowing where Flock cameras are located” and logging them on a public “deflock” database (via website and GitHub, with an app mentioned). They warn that using a smartphone near a Flock camera is a “huge no-no” because the system may log Bluetooth device IDs. They urge educating family by pointing out cameras and starting conversations, focusing on data security. They say to prepare for what comes next, including expansion to drones that could hover over properties. They also suggest political activism: calling representatives while being polite and respectful, and they use an analogy about dedication and opportunity costs for politicians. Finally, they discuss “carrot and stick,” arguing that cities should be rewarded if they stop or push back against Flock-like technologies. They call for support of “good cops” who push back rather than only attacking police, asserting that surveillance technology encourages treating the public like criminals and harms both sides. They conclude by rejecting what they describe as engaging with people like Flock’s leadership and say discourse should move “towards something good,” potentially “fight in the shade.”

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.

Eric Prince and Tucker Carlson discuss what they describe as pervasive, ongoing phone and device surveillance. They say that a study of devices—including Google Mobile Services on Android and iPhones—shows a spike in data leaving the phone around 3 AM, amounting to about 50 megabytes, effectively the phone “dialing home to the mother ship” and exporting “all of your goings on.” They describe “pillow talk” and other private interactions being transmitted, and claim that even apps like WhatsApp, which is marketed as end-to-end encrypted, ultimately have data that is “sliced and diced and analyzed and used to push … advertising” once it passes through servers. They argue that this surveillance is not limited to phones but extends to other devices in the home, including Amazon’s Alexa and automobiles, which they say now have trackers and can trigger a kill switch, with recording of audio and, in many cases, video. The speakers contend this situation represents a monopoly by a handful of big tech companies that can use the collected data to control markets, dominate, and vertically integrate the economy, potentially shutting down competitors. They connect this to broader concerns about political power, claiming that the data profiles built on individuals enable manipulation of public opinion, messaging, and even election outcomes. They reference banking data, noting that banks like Chase have announced selling customers’ purchasing histories to other companies, as part of what they call a broader data-driven power shift. The discussion expands to warnings about a “technological breakaway civilization” operating illegally and interfaced with private intelligence agencies to manipulate, censor, and steal elections. They argue that AI, capable of trillions of calculations per second, magnifies these risks and increases the ability to take control of civilization. They reference geopolitical events, such as China’s blockade of Taiwan, and claim that microchips sold internationally have kill switches that could disable critical military and infrastructure. They speculate about the capabilities of NSA, Chinese, Russian, or hacker groups to exploit this vulnerability, describing a world in which the infrastructure is exposed like Swiss cheese to criminals and governments. Throughout, the speakers criticize the idea that technology is neutral, asserting instead that it has been hijacked by corrupt governments and corporations. They contrast these concerns with Google’s founding motto “don’t be evil,” claiming it was contradicted by later documents showing CIA involvement and In-Q-Tel’s role, and they warn that a social-credit, cashless society rollout could be enforced by private devices rather than drones or troops. The segment emphasizes education of Congress, state attorneys general, and the public about these supposed threats. Note: Promotional product endorsements and sponsor requests in the transcript have been omitted from this summary.

The transcript describes a surveillance system that monitors people continuously: “an eye on every corner,” “a mic in every pocket,” and “a log of every search.” It claims that the person is “the product,” with data collected through cameras, location tracking, habit files, and a “score on my name.” The “watcher” is portrayed as unblinking and persistent, using a phone mic that is “always live” to listen for keywords the algorithm can derive, and relying on cloud data without a warrant. It states that the watcher observes routine life—“when I’m shopping,” “when I sleep”—and tracks behavior through devices including a “smart TV,” “smart speaker,” and a “smart home,” framing the home as “a prison” built on “voluntary fears.” The transcript asserts that claims of safety, peace, freedom, and privacy mask ongoing tracking: it says the watcher builds a profile “more real than my skin,” measures behaviors such as breath, and sells data to “the highest bidder,” handing information to “corporate overlords.” The transcript also describes surveillance as extending into pre-crime and cognition—“pre-crime police,” “they know what I’m thinking before I even speak,” and “they know my hidden weakness” and “hidden streak.” It contrasts this with a resistance stance: the watcher “has a weakness” it “can’t erase,” because it can only watch what is willingly displaced. The speaker emphasizes that the watcher sees only surfaces and that “the depths” are what they “know,” calling for moving “in the cracks” and in “the blind” while preserving what is “sacred” and refusing to let it be stored inside a room. The final message instructs viewers to “stop giving” the watcher access, asserting that “the unseen life is the only one that’s truly yours,” and ends with “Excavation.”

The transcript discusses LED lights and a supposed IoT (Internet of Things) capability. It states that on 04/09/2019, Target confirmed they had provided Internet of Things lighting. IoT lighting means everything is connected and data can be collected from ongoing activities. The example given is that if you walk into Target with your phone, the lights will sync up to your phone to obtain data about what you’re purchasing and what you’re doing. The narration links this event to the period just before 2020, suggesting it occurred prior to the surge in shopping and alleged shortages that year. The speaker then asserts that these LED lights have microscopic cameras in them so they can watch people from every angle. The claim is that other stores, such as Whole Foods, are using similar technology in price tags that can scan and see who is buying items to collect data. The main takeaway presented is that if you bring LED lights into your home, the same type of technology claimed to be in these stores could be in the LED lights you bring into your house.

Speaker 0 describes smart meters in the context of a book, showing a plant and a smart meter, and notes that “that side's all cooked.” They claim that this illustrates what “they don’t tell people.” The speaker asserts that a smart meter catches fire and that a utility company denies homeowner damage claims, with insurance not covering fires. They reference “all these fires” and say there have been fires across the country linked to smart meters. They question how safety is tested, claiming that “this is a plastic dummy” and “that’s a phone” used to demonstrate safety, followed by the statement “And then what about plants exposed to Wi Fi? Look at this. No Wi Fi.” The speaker contrasts the apparent demonstration with alleged real-world risk to plants from wireless technology. The speaker adds a claim about the Navy, stating that it “knew 5,000 studies on the dangers of wireless technology.” They offer an example as “one good one” and connect Wi-Fi to thyroid issues, asserting “Thyroid issues, Wi Fi.”

Smart utility meters are being installed on millions of homes, but some homeowners claim they are causing health issues. Carol Garcia, a homeowner in Rochester Hills, says she experiences symptoms like bloody noses, headaches, and insomnia since the meters were installed. She blames the meters, which use electromagnetic frequency to transmit energy usage data. Other Metro Detroiters have also reported similar symptoms. However, DTE, the energy company, insists that the meters are safe and secure, using low power radio transmissions. Garcia believes that the public is unaware of the potential health effects. A state representative has expressed concerns about the issue.

The speaker says they have no Wi‑Fi, no Bluetooth, and no wireless devices in their house, arguing that people do not have to have wireless technology “pinging microwaves” throughout their home. They note that someone will object by saying it’s “not microwaves,” then respond by citing a book called *The Zapping of America* and a book described as *Microwaves and the Deadly Risk*, written by Paul B. Brodeur. The speaker claims the book explains how microwave technology was “created by Raytheon,” including “the first cell phone created by Raytheon” and “the first wireless technology created by Raytheon.” They further claim that the Department of Defense, described as “Raytheon,” wants people to have wireless technology in their house because it not only “cooks them” and causes health issues (they list autoimmune, “lots of smell, lots of taste, dizziness, brain fog”), but also because wireless technology allows people “to watch the people.” They state that when you have wireless, “people can see what’s in the house.” The speaker concludes by saying *The Sapping of America* by Paul Brodeur is recommended and adds that Brodeur is “a Frenchman,” encouraging viewers to look into the books.

The speaker discusses a growing social credit-like system controlled by algorithms. If a person’s family photos, online activities, purchases, associations, or friends diverge from what authorities expect, they can lose the ability to buy train tickets, board airplanes, obtain a passport, or be eligible for a job, including government work. These constraints are increasingly created, programmed, and decided by algorithms. These algorithms are fueled by data our devices produce constantly and invisibly. The records we generate are not just visible content but often unseen traces, such as location and activity footprints. The speaker emphasizes that our devices create records that we do not see, which aggregate into a comprehensive picture of individuals. Even when the content of communications isn’t visible, metadata reveals much. The government and other actors claim they do not need a warrant to collect metadata, yet it tells a complete story about a person’s life. Activity records are continually created, shared, collected, and intercepted by both companies and governments. As these records are sold and traded, the speaker argues that what is being sold is not merely information but people themselves. They claim that companies and governments are selling “us”—our future, our past, our history, and our identity. In doing so, they assert that these entities are eroding personal power and making individual stories work for them. Overall, the message is that everyday data—seemingly innocent day-to-day traces—are aggregated into powerful profiles. These profiles determine access to travel, work, and official status, and the data economy is framed as commodifying and leveraging individuals’ identities. The core assertion is that the modern data ecosystem constructs a pervasive power dynamic where people’s histories and identities are exploited to control and monetize them, while the actual content of private communications may be less visible than the broader metadata that shapes life opportunities.

In the video, Speaker 0 explains that LED lights are being pushed aggressively, even given away for free, because they will connect everything in the Internet of Things. These LED lights can be connected to a cellphone, a tablet, all home appliances, the thermostat, cars, the garage, and more, allowing monitoring and data collection from these devices. They can also be used to turn off devices based on climate reasons and other factors, meaning you are connected up to the Internet of Things. What’s interesting, according to the speaker, is that these LED lights “ping a lot of microwave radiation,” which will be demonstrated in the next video. The speaker describes using a TriField EMF tester to check the radiation coming off the LED lights and shows results labeled as “off the charts.” The claim is that by bringing these lights into the home, microwave radiation is being pinged into the house. The speaker asserts that this microwave radiation can impact health, listing effects on the heart, brain, eyes, skin, and other organs. The LED lights’ capability to connect to the Internet of Things is highlighted again as part of this scenario. The video then notes a claim about a 2016 announcement from the AMA, stating that LED lights can increase the risk of cataracts and eye degeneration, implying long-term harm to eyesight while allegedly promoting environmental aims. In summary, the narrator claims: - LED lights are being pushed and given away because they enable the Internet of Things, connecting to smartphones, tablets, home appliances, thermostats, cars, and garages for monitoring and control. - These LEDs allegedly “ping a lot of microwave radiation,” detectable with an EMF tester, described as “off the charts.” - The radiation entering the home is claimed to impact health, including the heart, brain, eyes, skin, and other organs, in addition to enabling IoT connectivity. - The speaker cites a 2016 AMA statement asserting that LED lights can increase the risk of cataracts and eye degeneration.

Today, we discuss the reasons to opt out of smart meters. In California, there are 13 million smart meters installed, raising concerns about their potential to cause wildfires. A PG&E meter reader mentioned that if smart meters catch fire, they can be remotely turned back on. Reports from Ontario highlight incidents where smart meters exploded near gas lines, leading to denied damage claims by utility companies. The Ontario Fire Marshal linked smart meters to multiple fires, suggesting a widespread issue. Notably, homes without smart meters in Los Angeles remained unharmed, while those with smart meters suffered extensive damage.

The speaker claims that PG&E could “get us in trouble” by putting copper wire around a smart meter, and argues PG&E already knows smart meters catch on fire. They cite “hundreds of lawsuits” against PG&E for smart meter fires, referencing fires in the Palisades, Hawaii, and “all the largest wildfires of the United States” as being smart meter related. They describe the alleged failure mode as a smart meter “pop” and “burns up like a Christmas tree,” then “burns down your whole house.” The speaker says insurance does not cover smart meter fires because insurance companies “don’t like to cover smart meter fires.” They then state that PG&E could be “mad” if someone tampers with a “fire causing meter,” and recommend switching to an analog meter. The speaker’s suggested process is to call PG&E and request an analog meter, explicitly saying they do not want a smart meter on their house. They claim the switch removes worries about the house burning down, while acknowledging there “might have to pay a fee,” which they present as preferable to losing the entire house. They also claim smart meters “ping like a cell phone tower,” and that the device is “pinging the entire time” and “pings every one millisecond.” They connect this to health effects they list, including insomnia, brain fog, and severe pain all over the body, and they further claim it can affect the heart.

A retired mechanical engineer has secured his analog meter with a lock and chain and a notice reading, "Attention. Do not install smart meter," because he believes smart meters are dangerous. He claims smart meters emit high-frequency radio waves that penetrate the body and can cause health problems. He says these radio waves go through concrete walls. Because his bedroom is next to the meter, he is worried about his and his children's health. He also claims that smart meters catch fire due to very high voltage inside.

The speaker says they do not have Wi‑Fi, Bluetooth, or any wireless devices in their house, arguing that there is no need for wireless technology to “ping” microwaves throughout the home. They reference a recurring claim that wireless technology is not microwaves, then respond by pointing to a book titled *The Zapping of America*, described as “microwaves and the deadly risk,” written by Paul B. They state that the book argues all wireless technology is microwaves and that it was created by Raytheon, citing the first cell phone and first wireless technology as being created by Raytheon. The speaker then claims that the Department of Defense wants people to have wireless technology in their houses because, they say, it “cooks them” and causes health issues including autoimmune issues, loss of smell, loss of taste, dizziness, and brain fog. They also claim that with wireless technology, people can “watch the people” and see what is in a house. The speaker recommends the book *The Zapping of America* by Paul Broder and suggests viewers look into Paul Broder, describing him as possibly French.

The speaker notes finding incandescent bulbs at Ace Hardware, highlighting a range of watt options such as 25-watt bulbs (including 25-watt globes) and some 40-watt bulbs, which the speaker says can work and are preferable to other options described as “torture.” They compare these to LEDs, pointing out that the spectrum of light from LEDs varies, with a specific emphasis on the yellow spectrum being “off the charts” in the examples shown. The speaker suggests that when entering someone’s home, you might as well ask what type of light bulbs they have. They raise a point about LEDs enabling additional features beyond lighting, stating that LEDs can be connected to the Internet and may have cameras, syncing with devices, and could watch or monitor you. This leads to the claim that the push toward LEDs was not only about saving energy but about having connected bulbs that could spy on people, while noting that old incandescent bulbs “don’t spy on you.” The speaker asserts that this surveillance motivation is connected to government actions, claiming that incandescents were being banned and eliminated because they supposedly prevented spying on citizens. The overall message contrasts incandescent bulbs with LEDs, presenting LEDs as part of a dystopian surveillance trend and portraying incandescents as non-spying alternatives.

Speaker 0 argues that facial recognition will be used to unlock a digital identity and will serve as a tool of control for upcoming agendas. They claim that elements of this control already exist and describe a highly connected home environment: all devices and smart appliances are on a wireless network, many have cameras and microphones, and they monitor everything continuously. Smart appliances communicate with the smart meter and send real-time usage data. If a Ring camera is present, a mesh network forms and all devices are tracked within the home, with location and usage data sent to Amazon’s servers. When leaving home, modern vehicles are connected to the Internet and tracked constantly. On highways and in cities, smart LED poles and lights form a wireless network that tracks vehicles and all devices (phones, smartwatches) people carry, enabling continuous data collection on every person within these wireless networks. Speaker 1 notes that this is obviously not good for health due to electromagnetic radiation. Speaker 0 continues by stating that the long-term plan is to lock humanity into smart cities, described as a superset of a fifteen-minute city. They claim governments have been sold on smart cities as promoting sustainability and the common good, but quote language from the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) as inverted. In this view, surveillance is used to limit mobility and reduce car ownership. They describe surveillance via an LED grid as essential to smart lighting and view it as harmful. They extend this to water management, which they say is about water rationing; noise pollution as speed surveillance; traffic monitoring as mobility restriction; and energy conservation as rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline. The speakers introduce the concept of geofencing as an invisible boundary that people cannot cross, tied to facial recognition, digital identity, and access control. They mention smart contracts and a mechanism called Softbrick that can disable digital currency beyond a point from a person’s house. They summarize their view by stating that the world has become a digital panopticon, enabling monitoring, analysis, management, and monetization of people.

I worked as a meter reader for PG and E for nine and a half years before being fired for speaking out about issues with smart meters. PG and E is aware that their systems can catch fire when remotely turned back on after a customer pays their bill, yet they are covering this up. When I joined, the metering budget was $70 million for about 1,000 meter readers, but PG and E and the Public Utility Commission mislead customers about the system's cost, claiming it to be $2.2 billion or even $10 billion. Additionally, PG and E shouldn't charge extra for meter reading since it's already done at a lower cost. Notably, meter readers are the only ones conducting surveys for the gas department. Thank you.

The speaker says they have been talking with people across Casagrande, and a recurring issue is safety. They then announce a new company called Shepherd Safety and describe its mission as keeping government officials and their families safe. The company says it will launch satellites to monitor Casagrande day and night using AI to track where government officials go, where they stop, who they meet with, and when they return home. The transcript states that Shepherd Safety has already begun collecting and building profiles on vehicles, including spouses’ vehicles, children’s vehicles, and other visual characteristics. It says this information will be combined with publicly available data, Bluetooth signals, advertising IDs, vehicle information, and commercial data sources. The speaker claims that authorized users will be able to “replay the movements” of every government official and their immediate family. The transcript further asserts that the system is “no difference” than current Flock Safety capture systems. It also states that information will be stored securely and only authorized users will have access, and that data will be stored for thirty days. The speaker says local businesses will be invited to join a network so government officials can continue being protected while shopping, eating, or traveling throughout the city. They then address concerns that the approach sounds invasive, including worries about abuse, unauthorized access, and tracking innocent people. The transcript says the concerns mirror what citizens have, referencing “eight hundred and sixty-four” people (or a similar number). It claims the system will be defended on the idea that “if you’re doing nothing wrong, you got nothing to hide,” and that there is “no expectation of privacy in public,” so tracking and uploading movements online is framed as acceptable. The transcript emphasizes that authorized users will have access and that only thirty days of data will be stored, arguing it is “no different from Flock.” The speaker then shifts to a privacy-focused objection, saying privacy should not stop being important when the word “safety” is used, and arguing that surveillance of elected officials and their families should not be accepted “for ourselves.” The transcript states: “this is satire,” adds “I wouldn’t never do this to you. Could I? Probably. But I wouldn’t, because it’s wrong,” and continues that the speaker is “innocent” and does not do anything wrong. They say their movements are tracked and uploaded every day without permission and request that tracking be stopped. The speaker asks for data collection to be put behind a warrant, “just like my phone records.” They end by saying they hope everyone has been having a great summer.

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.

California plants ban plants due to wildfires. 'the government shut off the water when the fire was happening,' and 'they wanna ban plants.' They claim 'smart meters were catching on fire every time there's a fire,' and that 'the insurance companies even know,' adding that 'if your house catches on fire from a smart meter, the insurance companies actually will not cover you.' The speaker cites lawsuits claiming 'faulty PG and E smart meters started their house fire,' and says the meter 'pulses 14,000 to 190,000 times per day,' a claim PG and E admitted in court. They reference a 2019 document 'how insurance companies know this' and contend 'smart meters actually jack up your electric bill by two to three times the price.' They advocate 'analog meter instead of a smart meter' and note California considers per mile road charge as gas tax revenue is expected to decline.

The speaker first assumes the device is a Flock Safety camera, but says it is not. They describe it as a surveillance camera used by local governments and law enforcement. The speaker claims law enforcement uses and hides these cameras by disguising them inside utility-related enclosures, including adding “fake electrical logos” to boxes so they appear to be electrical or utility infrastructure. The speaker characterizes the devices as covert pole cameras used to monitor the public. They point out an example of “fake and repurposed meter boxes” attached to utility poles. The speaker then references reviewing the video again, stating that when the footage is pulled forward, it shows a fake utility box connected to a pole.

Speaker 0 argues that facial recognition will be used to unlock your digital identity, which will be a tool of control for upcoming agendas. Speaker 1 notes that elements of this control are already with us, citing Alexa as an example. Speaker 0 contends you are never alone in your home, because all devices and smart appliances are connected on a wireless network, many with cameras and microphones, monitoring everything all the time. Smart appliances communicate with the smart meter, sending real-time usage data. If a Ring camera is in the home, a mesh network is formed and all devices are being tracked within the home, including location and usage, with data going to Amazon’s servers. Speaker 1 adds that when you leave your home, modern vehicles are connected to the Internet and tracked continually. On the streets, smart LED poles and smart LED lights form a wireless network that track your vehicle. They claim data is collected 24/7 continuously on every human being within these wireless networks. Speaker 0 asserts this is not good for health due to electromagnetic radiation. Speaker 0 further states that in the long term the plan is to lock up humanity in smart cities, a super set of a fifteen minute city. Speaker 1 says they’ve sold smart cities to state and local governments and countries as about sustainability and the city’s good, but claims the language from the UN and WEF and their white papers is inverted. The monitoring is described as about limiting mobility and no car ownership. Surveillance via LED grid is described as why smart lighting is death. Water management is about water rationing; noise pollution about speed surveillance; traffic monitoring about limiting mobility; energy conservation about rationing heat, electricity, and gasoline. Speaker 0 explains geofencing as an invisible fence around you where you cannot go beyond a certain point, related to face recognition, digital identity, and access control. Speaker 1 mentions that smart contracts can enable Softbrick to turn off your digital currency beyond a certain point from your house. The world is described as turned into a digital panopticon. Speaker 0 concludes that this means you can be monitored, analyzed, managed, and monetized.

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.'