reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

23andMe is mentioned, prompting a warning against using their services due to data selling practices. It is claimed that 23andMe sells user data to other entities, including Russia. Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is introduced. The claim is made that 23andMe's contract contains a clause allowing them to share information with shareholders, some of whom are pharmaceutical companies based in other countries. These foreign pharmaceutical companies are allegedly owned by entities such as the Ministry of Defense in Russia or are based in China.

DNA companies are issuing warnings that your personal information can be sold and weaponized against you. It is claimed that someone's DNA and medical profile can be used to target a biological weapon that will kill that person. People are sending their DNA to companies like 23 and Me to get data about their background, but their DNA is now owned by a private company and can be sold off. There needs to be a public discussion about protecting healthcare and DNA information because this data will be collected by adversaries to develop these systems.

While on the oversight committee in the senate, Dominion was investigated. The president of Dominion and his software maker testified. Questions focused on whether Dominion machines had internet access. The president of Dominion said no, but this was a lie. The investigation was published, recorded, and should be online.

A committee hearing is addressing privacy and national security concerns surrounding 23andMe's bankruptcy. 23andMe, a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, raising concerns about who will gain access to sensitive customer data. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals initially entered an agreement to acquire 23andMe, but the auction was reopened. Concerns exist regarding the storage, usage, and potential access by foreign adversaries to this private information, especially given 23andMe's past funding from investors linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Regeneron's partnership with a Chinese company also raises questions. The CCP's history of mass surveillance, bioweapon activities, and misuse of genetic data, including the hacking of 23andMe in 2023, are highlighted. In 2019, the Department of Defense warned military members against using consumer DNA kits due to security risks. Potential harm includes misuse by foreign actors, higher insurance premiums, credit restrictions, and targeted advertising. The committee seeks to understand how 23andMe will ensure the safety of Americans' genetic data and is hearing from 23andMe representatives.

A committee hearing is addressing privacy and national security concerns regarding 23andMe's bankruptcy. 23andMe, a direct-to-consumer genetic testing company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, raising questions about who will access customers' sensitive genetic data. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals initially entered an agreement to acquire 23andMe, but the auction was reopened to allow bids from Regeneron and TTAM Research. Concerns exist regarding the storage, usage, and potential access by foreign adversaries to this private information, especially given 23andMe's past funding from investors, including WuXi Healthcare Ventures, linked to the CCP. Regeneron's partnership with a Chinese company, Xi Lab Ltd, is also noted. 23andMe was hacked in 2023, exposing nearly 7,000,000 profiles, mostly targeting Jewish and Chinese customers. The Department of Defense previously warned military members against using consumer DNA kits due to security risks. Potential harms include misuse by foreign actors, higher insurance premiums, credit restrictions, and targeted advertising. The committee seeks to understand how to ensure the safety of Americans' genetic data from Ann Wojciechie and Joseph Selzavage.

Speaker 0 outlines a controversy over data mining and privatized spying. He says the data mine is owned by a company called ChoicePoint, created by Republicans. He asserts they built the database that “knocked off the black voters,” and claims they did so to help elect the president of the United States, with “no bid contracts” totaling over $1,000,000,000 to maintain databases on people. He alleges that after talking with insiders at the ChoicePoint Corporation, executives, they are “matching your phone numbers, your billing medical records, your voting registration records, your driver's licenses, and their latest thing, your DNA.” He notes that spying on Americans is illegal under the Constitution, and emphasizes that the trick is privatizing the spy function. He argues they set up a private company—describing it as a private FBI, but calling it a private KGB—and that this private company has a large database, “16,000,000,000 records,” believed to be at least double that since then, which would be illegal for the United States government to keep. According to the speaker, ChoicePoint supposedly keeps the records and then sells that information to the U.S. government secretly. He asserts that when they were supposedly hunting illegal voters in Florida, their list was “97% wrong.” He repeats, “Let me repeat that. 97% wrong.” Yet he claims the list “was perfect for Jeb Bush because what it did get right is it identified black voters, which they could knock off.” The speaker also alleges problems with DNA evidence: “25% of the DNA evidence in rape cases in Illinois until the police caught them faking the evidence in rape cases,” after which they were fired. He emphasizes that this is not about Mouthis getting their man, but about the Mouthis getting the political targets for their men. Speaker 1 adds a closing line, saying, “I took over George Orwell's old power. He'd appreciate all this, you know. He'd love it.”

The speaker reveals shocking information about the deletion of the entire database directory from the d drive of the machine called EMS primary. This deletion occurred approximately 10 days before the machines were handed over to the Senate. Deleting documents after being told to preserve them can have severe legal consequences. Additionally, the main database for the election management system software, which contains all election-related data from the November 2020 general election, is missing from the EMS primary machine. This suggests that it has been removed.

The senator questions the speaker about their firm's client selection policy, specifically regarding their clients who are state-owned Chinese corporations. The speaker defends their rigorous selection process and claims to primarily work with multinational and private sector companies. However, the senator highlights that the firm has advised state-owned enterprises involved in activities contrary to US security interests. The speaker denies advising these specific companies but fails to provide satisfactory answers. The senator criticizes the firm for making substantial profits from both US enemies and the American taxpayer. The senator proposes a law to prohibit such activities and vows to push for a vote on it.

DNA companies are under scrutiny for potentially selling and weaponizing personal DNA information. It is claimed that a person's DNA and medical profile could be used to target them with a biological weapon. Concerns are raised about individuals willingly submitting their DNA to companies like 23 and Me, resulting in private companies owning and potentially selling that data. It is argued that open discussions are needed regarding the protection of healthcare and DNA information. The speaker asserts that adversaries could procure and collect this data to develop harmful systems.

The speaker raises concerns about people being overly enthusiastic about giving their data to organizations like Cambridge Analytica, which has links to Palantir and Faculty. They emphasize the risk of putting everyone's data in the country at stake by giving it to such organizations. The speaker urges the secretary of state to become aware of this issue and offers to provide information on data and democracy.

Retired FBI Agent discusses the privacy concerns surrounding home DNA test kits. He highlights a case where a detective obtained a court order to search over a million records in a DNA database. He questions whether health insurance companies would use this information to make coverage decisions. Even if privacy measures are in place, the risk of hacking or acquisition by a company with different values remains. While acknowledging the desire to find birth parents, the speaker personally opts out of using these kits.

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

23andMe is mentioned, prompting a warning against using their services due to data selling practices. It is claimed that 23andMe sells user data to other entities, including Russia. Nathaniel Johnson, a policy advisor for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is introduced. The claim is made that 23andMe's contract includes a clause allowing them to share information with shareholders, some of whom are pharmaceutical companies based in other countries. These foreign pharmaceutical companies are allegedly owned by entities like the Ministry of Defense in Russia or are based in China.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they know who Palantir is and if they agree with the comparison to Stanford Analytica. Speaker 1 says they haven't heard that. Speaker 0 then asks if Palantir taught Cambridge Analytica how to use certain tactics, to which Speaker 1 replies that they don't know. Lastly, Speaker 0 asks if Palantir has ever scraped data from Facebook, and Speaker 1 says they are not aware of that.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the company's data deletion policy, specifically how long it takes and whether the data is permanently deleted. Speaker 1 states that genetic data is typically deleted automatically within 30 days and is gone forever. Speaker 0 then quotes the company's privacy statement, which says that the company retains genetic information, date of birth, and sex even after an account is deleted. Speaker 1 initially denies retaining genetic information but then admits to retaining some information, such as name and email address, but not genetic information. Speaker 0 reiterates that the privacy policy states the company retains genetic information, date of birth, and sex even after account deletion.

23andMe filed for bankruptcy, and CEO Ann Wajiki is resigning. Shares dropped over 50% after the bankruptcy filing. 23andMe's database of human genetic information may be sold in bankruptcy proceedings. According to 23andMe's privacy statement, in the event of bankruptcy, merger, acquisition, reorganization, or sale of assets, personal information may be accessed, sold, or transferred. This means your DNA could be used in unforeseen ways, such as cloning or being sold to malicious actors who could use it to implicate you in crimes. Bioweapons are a possibility, as is insurance companies using DNA data to deny coverage. Instructions are provided on how to delete your data from 23andMe.

Senator Warren expressed concern over Elon Musk's access to user data on Twitter, including financial information. This prompted a response questioning the government's own access to such data. The response argued that Warren's concern is less about protecting individual citizens and more about concealing potential government misconduct, including money laundering. The response further criticizes Warren's hypocrisy, highlighting her past statements about citizens' right to know how their tax dollars are spent. Ultimately, the response asserts that the government's actions are being exposed, and it's time for accountability.

During my time in the Senate's oversight committee, we examined Dominion. The proceedings were recorded and are available online. The president of Dominion and his software engineer testified, primarily addressing whether their machines had Internet access. The president claimed there was no Internet access, which I believe was false.

Senator and Dr. Verma engage in a contentious exchange about biology, pregnancy, and how science should guide medicine. The Senator presses: “Can men get pregnant?” He frames the question as a straightforward biological reality and argues that science and evidence should control, not politics. He emphasizes that there are biological men and biological women, and that women get pregnant. He notes that the abortion drug has safety concerns, stating that it “causes adverse health events in eleven percent of cases” and that this is “twenty two times greater than the FDA label,” asserting that this basic reality has not been acknowledged. Dr. Verma responds by describing his clinical practice, saying he cares for patients with different identities and for many women, including people who do not identify as women. He pauses when asked the binary question, explaining that he is unsure of the goal of the question and emphasizing the complexity of identity and medicine. He reframes the issue by saying that science and evidence should guide medicine, but he avoids giving a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether “biological men” can get pregnant. He characterizes such yes/no questions as political tools and stresses the need to address the experiences of patients rather than polarize the discussion. The Senator insists on a direct yes/no response, reiterating that the question is about biology and the truth, and that men are not pregnant. He argues that failing to acknowledge this undermines trust in science and could have constitutional implications for protections of women. Dr. Verma maintains that he is a physician who follows science and aims to represent the complex experiences of patients, and he again cautions against polarized framing. He expresses willingness to have a conversation that avoids polarization and politics. The exchange moves from the specific biology question to broader themes: the role of science in medicine, the intersection of gender identity with medical care, and the communication of medical facts in a political context. The Senator closes by emphasizing the distinction between biological reality and political narratives, reiterating that women get pregnant and highlighting safety concerns about abortion drugs. He thanks the witnesses and the chairman for the hearing, noting a focus on protecting women and following science, while indicating disappointment at the level of debate.

Speaker 1 advises against using 23andMe because they allegedly sell user information. Speaker 1 claims this data is sold not only to the US but also potentially to other countries, including Russia. Speaker 1 suggests some pharmaceutical companies that purchase this data are based in countries like Russia and may be owned by entities such as the Ministry of Defense.

A member of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jason Crow, has warned against using DNA testing services, stating that private companies could potentially use the collected material to develop bioweapons targeting individuals. While this may sound like something out of a James Bond movie, it is a concern due to the CRISPR gene editing technology, which makes it easier to create targeted bioweapons. One such company, 23andMe, is an American-owned California company that trades on the Nasdaq but has a Chinese investor. There are concerns about the transparency of data sharing with China. US officials worry about the lack of regulation and transparency surrounding the movement of medical data, as well as China's strategy of gathering biological data for various purposes.

The speaker raises concerns about the links between Palantir, Faculty, and Cambridge Analytica, stating that these connections put people's data at risk. They emphasize the importance of understanding this issue and provide information to the secretary of state. The speaker questions the secretary about agreements with companies that analyze voting intentions and suggests that data could be used to influence voting. The chair reminds the speaker to focus on the coronavirus inquiry. The speaker argues that data should not be exploited during a pandemic. The secretary denies the accusations and emphasizes the careful protocols in place to protect data. The speaker insists that data can be used for both saving lives and manipulation. The speaker concludes by asking if the secretary has visited the COVID at war. The secretary responds that they have not yet visited but hope to do so.