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.

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.

After the anthrax attacks in 2001, the Patriot Act was quickly passed, targeting two senators who opposed it. The anthrax incident was used to justify the war in Iraq, as the CIA claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush's reliance on the CIA's assurances led to significant military action despite Saddam's lack of involvement in 9/11. The Patriot Act, rushed through Congress, included provisions that undermined constitutional protections and allowed federal officials to violate international treaties without prosecution. The FBI later determined that the anthrax strain used was linked to a CIA lab at Fort Detrick, suggesting involvement from the Pentagon or CIA in the attacks.

The speaker reveals that the Patriot Act, which was introduced in 1994, was actually written by civil libertarians. However, it was defeated at that time by right-wing individuals who were concerned about the potential consequences. The speaker clarifies that the current version of the Patriot Act is very similar to the one they introduced in 1994. They also mention that the right wing was responsible for its defeat back then, while acknowledging that the audience had no involvement in that.

FISA, originally meant for security, now allows unchecked surveillance on Americans, eroding privacy and rights. Secret courts enable abuse, turning FISA into a tool of oppression. Trump's campaign was targeted under FISA warrants, showing political weaponization. This misuse threatens democracy, highlighting the dangers of unchecked power and the need to reclaim lost liberties.

There are members of Congress who are controlled by intel agencies. A high-ranking member of the House Intel Committee admitted to being spied on by the NSA. Even though he provides oversight, they still monitor him. Michael McCall, a leader among neoconservatives, accused someone of being a Russian agent based on what the intel briefers told him. When confronted, he defended himself by saying he believed the intel. This highlights the manipulation and control exerted by intel agencies over politicians.

It was passed in the wake of nine eleven and calls for new and vast powers for US intelligence agencies understandably had lots of backing. The reforms known as the Patriot Act according to President Bush were designed to prevent another attack like the one on September 11. It essentially gave organizations like the NSA more access to internet records, made it easier to tap phones, and made it easier to share intelligence information. May we take an essential step in defeating terrorism while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans? Snowden announced the Patriot Act was secretly being used to justify the collection of phone records from millions of Americans. 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.

The speaker discusses the issue of illegal domestic spying by the US government on its own citizens. They explain that after 9/11, the powers of the NSA, CIA, and FBI were focused on the domestic population, despite assurances that it would be temporary. The speaker highlights the bipartisan effort to extend and expand these spying powers, including the potential expansion of surveillance on public Wi-Fi networks. They also mention the history of abuse and the need for reforms. Senator Mike Lee is mentioned as a proponent of limiting these powers. The speaker concludes by discussing the possibility of bipartisan reform and the need to stop the extension of these powers.

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

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.

Nine eleven started as commercial insurance fraud. It was known in 1988 that the Twin Towers were condemned because they didn't wanna pay the $2,000,000,000 to dismantle the buildings the hard way. Controlled demolitions was forbidden. When that was briefed to Dick Cheney as secretary of defense, I believe he said, praise the lord. This is going to be a terrorism event that will give us a reason for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. And at that point, the nine eleven, which was planned and executed by the Zionists, which is not the Jews. When I say Zionists, I'm talking about what's called the red mafia. That's the Russians, Israelis, and Americans who are a criminal network that happens to control Benjamin Netanyahu. It does not control Donald Trump. People don't understand that Trump is biding his time. The NSA is not about solving problems or making America safe. It's about keeping the money moving. The second reason that the program was canceled was because it was starting to reveal all of the Americans who were complicit in nine eleven. The problem we have in The United States is that the intelligence community is all about spending a great deal of money doing very bad things. So let's say overall, there's about 300 things that the intelligence community should be reporting on. They don't. They report on two things, war and terrorism. And in both cases, they're the ones starting the wars and funding the terrorists.

The speaker references a collection of legal and policy claims surrounding the Homeland Security Act era, asserting that: - They possess Supreme Court case law defending the First Amendment and US Code provisions on conspiracy against rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, and federally protected activities, to be shared with the group. - The DHS/ICE complex was formed as part of a catalyst event that directly caused the Patriot Act, which the speaker claims “virtually shredded the constitution.” - Nine/eleven is described as the catalyst for the Patriot Act; the speaker alleges overwhelming and undeniable evidence that Israel, Jews, and Israel loyalists are responsible for 9/11. - Michael Chertoff is described as an “Israeli Talmudic Jew” who drafted the Patriot Act, which was prepared less than six weeks after 9/11/2001. DHS was established in 2003 and consolidated 22 federal agencies, birthing ICE. - Michael Chertoff is noted as the second secretary of DHS, who later founded the Chertoff Group LLC and profited from TSA airport surveillance and body scan machines. - The speaker claims every DHS secretary has been Jewish or a “Jew loyalist/Zionist.” - DHS allegedly worked directly with Jewish refugee NGOs (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, Refugee International, etc.), and DHS paid Jewish NGOs with US tax dollars to import foreigners. - Under former secretary Mayorkas, described as a dual citizen with Israel and Jewish, DHS purportedly imported over 80,000 refugees after the Afghan withdrawal, in addition to millions of other migrants; impeachment of Mayorkas is claimed to have been dropped due to “anti Semitic conspiracy theories” linked to a claimed Klerge plan and a UN document titled Replacement Migration. - The speaker asserts immigration is a tool of a “Zionist occupied government” intended to justify a permanent authoritarian surveillance police state, asserting use of the Patriot Act and Palantir as weapons against Americans. - ICE is claimed to receive training, policies, and protocols from the IDF, with hundreds or thousands of IDF foreign military members operating within ICE, implying a foreign paramilitary domestic organization operating under a federal agency on U.S. streets. - The broader claim: the United States is not only occupied, but in the early stages of a Bolshevik Revolution 2.0. - A reference to the constitutional right “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” and an oath to support and defend the Constitution is included, followed by a detour mentioning the Dow, fertilizer, and the Tree of Liberty, with an intention to drop off a document, implying risk to the speaker. The transcript ends with the speaker noting a potential assassination risk and instructing to leave the document with a clerk.

People naturally crave control and always seek to expand it. This leads to the creation of new laws and strategies to gain more control, such as the NDAA, Patriot Act, and NSA surveillance. Each time this happens, more control is obtained. However, this constant pursuit of control poses a problem.

The conversation centers on fears of evolving toward a biometric surveillance state driven by predictive algorithms. Speaker 0 argues that the plan resembles a transition to mass surveillance on everybody, drawing on observations from a recent trip to China where some aspects were acceptable but others were not, and contrasts that with potential consequences in the speakers’ own country—specifically, “without the nice trains and without the free healthcare.” The core concern is the creation of a biometric surveillance framework that uses predictive analytics to monitor and control people. A key point raised is a new report that highlights contracts with Palantir, the data analytics company, which would “create data profiles of Americans to surveil and harass them.” This claim emphasizes the potential domestic use of technologies and methodologies that have been associated with counterterrorism efforts abroad. The discussion frames this as evidence that the United States could be adopting similar surveillance capabilities at home. Speaker 1 responds with a blend of agreement and critical tone, underscoring the perceived inevitability of this trajectory and hinting at the burdens of being right about such developments, including the intellectual burden of grappling with the math and ontology behind these systems. The exchange suggests that Palantir’s role is to “disrupt and make our the institutions we partner with the very best in the world” and to be prepared to “scare enemies and on occasion kill them.” This is presented as part of Palantir’s stated mission, with Speaker 1 affirming a sense of inevitability about the path forward. Speaker 0 further reframes the issue by stating that “the enemy is literally the American people,” expressing alarm at the idea that the same company tracking terrorists abroad would “now be tracking us at home.” They note posting on social media that this development should be very alarming, highlighting the notion that the entity responsible for foreign surveillance might be extending its reach domestically. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes concerns about a domestic biometric surveillance state—enabled by predictive algorithms and proprietary data profiling by Palantir—with ethical and political anxieties about the implications for civil liberties, accountability, and the potential normalization of surveillance within the United States. The conversation dismisses no specific claims but emphasizes the perceived transformation of surveillance capabilities from foreign counterterrorism into internal population monitoring.

Yesterday's House vote wasn't directly on FISA or warrant requirements for surveilling Americans, but on bringing the issue before Congress, which failed. This is unfortunate because FISA will likely return without the warrant requirement. Section 702 of FISA has been chronically misused. A 2021 Inspector General report revealed roughly a third of 3.4 million database queries violated rules. There are a minimum of 10,000 people with access to this database, with many unknown entry points. No one has been held accountable. Problems disclosed in a 2017 FISA court report were supposedly addressed, but the 2021 Horowitz report showed problems have exponentially increased. I don't believe any reform can fix the structural problems with FISA. The intelligence community refuses warrants for surveilling Americans while Congress wants notification if they're surveilled, highlighting a broken system.

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.

Speaker 0 recounts an argument with a friend during the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance. He challenges the idea that “you can look at my shit. I’m not doing anything wrong. What do you care?” and questions who the so‑called perfect overseers are. He emphasizes that these are unelected bureaucrats who could have financial or power-based incentives to monitor, silence voices, or manipulate individuals by accessing emails and phone calls. Speaker 1 suggests that even if the current government is honorable, there is a risk that a future government could abuse surveillance. He warns that the next administration might come after people who dissent, like Joe Rogan, by digging through emails and targeting individuals for actions or statements they dislike. Speaker 0 recalls the debate around the NDAA during Obama’s presidency, describing it as the indefinite detention concept that did not require charging someone or timely trials. He notes the push for this provision and questions why it was pursued, implying it could be used to detain people indefinitely. Speaker 1 adds that they are concerned about who might wield power in future generations, asking “how many generations are we away from Hitler?” He argues that the founding fathers designed checks and balances precisely because they understood how corruption and tyranny can emerge when power concentrates. Speaker 0 asserts that eroding protections through measures like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or the NDAA undermines the Constitution’s core idea, which is based on the belief that government must serve the people and that power corrupts. He emphasizes that those in power would act as tyrants if left unchecked, and warns that granting broad surveillance and detention powers threatens the “fabric” the country was created with. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together highlight a core concern: the risk of surveillance and detention powers being exploited by unscrupulous leaders in the future, undermining democratic principles and the safeguards designed to prevent tyranny. They stress the importance of checks and balances to prevent government overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties in the face of expanding surveillance and security powers.

The Communications Security Establishment or CSEC has insisted it targets only foreign communication. But now it's been revealed it's also sweeping up the personal information of thousands of Canadians and storing it for up to thirty years. Canada's conservative government is giving sweeping new powers to this country's spy agency. It's also providing police new tools to track and detain those who would commit terrorist acts. Prime minister Stephen Harper says the new bill tabled today is necessary to protect Canadians. The report frames these changes as a necessary expansion of national security powers. The new measures are presented as essential for protecting citizens within a broadened security framework.

After the anthrax attacks in 2002, the Patriot Act was passed. The anthrax was sent to two individuals who were blocking the act. It was later discovered that the anthrax was used by the neocons and the CIA to justify going to war in Iraq. The head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, misled President George W. Bush about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. The anthrax attack had no connection to 9/11. The Patriot Act was quickly passed without being thoroughly read, and it not only violated the constitution but also reopened the bioweapons arm race. The FBI investigation revealed that the anthrax came from the CIA lab in Fort Detrick, suggesting involvement from the Pentagon or the CIA.

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.