reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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."

The speaker asserts that the United States government has perfected a technological capability to monitor messages transmitted through the air, enabling interception of communications between ships at sea and among military units in the field. This extensive capability to intercept messages wherever they are in the airways is described as necessary and important for looking abroad at enemies or potential enemies, because the U.S. must know what they are doing. However, the speaker warns that this capability could at any time be turned around on American people, eliminating privacy and allowing the government to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, and more—leaving no place to hide if the government ever became tyrannical. The most careful efforts to organize resistance, even if privately conducted, would be within the reach of the government to know. This, the speaker says, demonstrates the power of the technology and its potential to enable total tyranny. The speaker emphasizes the purpose of the investigation: to prevent the country from ever going across “the bridge,” to avoid crossing into tyranny. They state a clear conviction that the capacity exists to make tyranny total in America, and therefore it is essential to ensure that this agency and all agencies possessing the technology operate within the law and under proper supervision. The ultimate aim is to ensure that the nation never crosses into that abyss from which there is no return.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses Palantir and expanded government use. Key points: - Palantir is openly building databases on people, used with ICE and announced for broader government use; Palantir also manages all health data due to extensive contracts with HHS. - Trump’s first term included a push to have social media companies flag statements to prevent shootings, using analytics to determine intervention before a crime—concept described as “minority report.” - William Barr, during the first Trump administration, created DEEP, a program that legalized precrime in the United States; there were a few arrests under DEEP for Facebook posts, but not many, with the legal framework in place since Trump’s first term. - The pitch for a precrime system included HARPA, a health-focused version of DARPA, and a program called Safe Homes intended to analyze American social media posts for early warning signs of neuropsychiatric violence. Based on that analysis, individuals could be sent to a court-ordered psychologist or physician or placed under house arrest without having committed any crime. - With Palantir’s increased government integration, especially through the Doge agency led by Elon Musk, Palantir has embedded itself further in government, including the IRS and mortgage-related entities like Fannie Mae; this involves access to data from the Department of Treasury and the IRS, forming a master database aimed at stopping crime before it happens. - Palantir’s precrime activities included piloting predictive policing programs in police departments, initially in New Orleans, targeting primarily low-income minority neighborhoods. - Other companies besides Palantir, such as Predpol in Los Angeles, claim to provide predictive policing with an accuracy of 0.5%; contracts with Predpol have not been terminated. - The overarching concept traces to the Panopticon idea: constant surveillance leads people to police themselves and censor themselves, implying control through perpetual observation, rather than purely improved efficiency in policing. The speaker characterizes this as the foundational form of control.

The speaker discusses the growing collaboration between government and corporations in restricting individual freedoms. They highlight China's extensive surveillance system and social credit system as examples of this control. The speaker warns that Western societies are heading in a similar direction due to technological advancements and the desire for security. They emphasize the dangers of digital identity, surveillance, and manipulation by both corporations and governments. The potential for a surveillance state and loss of personal autonomy is a significant concern.

The speaker argues that the decay of constitutional governance happens not through dramatic repeals but through microscopic, structural shifts that stress the foundation until it cracks. A specific constitutional hazard has emerged in the United States: a system engineered to suppress political speech and investigative journalism without proving speech false, operating in the dark to evade formal legal scrutiny and meaningful judicial review. This is driven by a highly functional, multilayered bypass architecture comprised of three interacting vectors: preemptive policing, private machine-assisted surveillance, and the expansion of elastic legal statutes, which together circumvent constitutional protections. First, the preemptive shift, intensified after 9/11, reframes public safety from punishing wrongdoing after the fact to absolute prevention. Law enforcement began relying on predictive models, inferring risk from patterns of behavior and trajectories of escalation to identify targets before anything materialized. This groundwork enables enforcement actions without an underlying concrete crime, allowing intent to be reconstructed retrospectively. Second, a structural vulnerability in Fourth Amendment doctrine is exploited through private surveillance. The constitution constrains government action but not private conduct, and advances in automation, network mapping, and machine learning let private actors replicate state-level intelligence collection at scale. This creates surveillance laundering: private entities conduct unconstrained monitoring, compile dossiers, and hand them to law enforcement. Foreign-aligned actors can use this loophole to inject synthetic risk narratives into domestic enforcement. The state thus benefits from a permanent, omniscient surveillance apparatus without directly operating it, while disavowing responsibility for data gathering. Third, after surveillance data is laundered, the system finds a way to penalize targets without triggering First Amendment protections. This comes through the gradual expansion of harassment and cyberstalking statutes in the late 1990s and early 2000s, where the concept of a course of conduct was broadened to include digital communications. The statutes rely on subjective standards (such as emotional distress) and do not require the underlying speech to be objectively false, defamatory, or contain explicit threats. This allows enforcement to perform a semantic sleight of hand: standard adversarial journalism—asking questions, following up, pursuing inquiries—becomes a course of conduct, and persistence becomes fixation. The manner of speech is penalized, not its truth. As a result, private actors surveil, machines synthesize, and statutes provide elastic hooks. Police act preemptively, and outdated jurisprudence fails against this architecture, shattering due process and equal protection assumptions. There is a glaring asymmetry: aggressive use of procedural statutes against powerless individual speakers versus reluctance to pursue elite criminal networks. This deliberate fragmentation of responsibility shields the powerful, transforming the legal system into a tool for narrative control and creating a massive systemic chilling effect. The spiral of silence leads researchers to abandon valid lines of inquiry, journalists to narrow reporting, and citizens to disengage from public oversight. The boundaries of lawful expression are no longer set by written law but by opaque algorithmic risk tolerance and enforcement discretion, rendering rights effectively eroded even as the language of freedom remains.

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.

Governments worldwide are using hate speech and misinformation as excuses to censor and control their political opponents. In Ireland, proposed hate speech laws could allow police to invade homes and seize electronics. In Canada, Trudeau's legislation could lead to life imprisonment for speech deemed offensive. The Biden administration is working with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This focus on labeling content as extremist is dangerous, as it criminalizes speech and can lead to unjust suppression of protests. This trend towards censorship is totalitarian and reminiscent of the dystopian concept of precrime. The reasons behind these actions remain unclear. Translated: Governments globally are using hate speech and misinformation to justify censoring political opponents. Proposed laws in Ireland and Canada could lead to invasive measures and harsh penalties for speech. The Biden administration is collaborating with groups to censor content and individuals on social media. This trend is dangerous and can suppress protests unfairly. The motives behind these actions are uncertain.

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.

Signal, a company, may be asked by the regulator Ofcom about the data they gather. Signal claims they don't collect data on people's messages. However, the concern is that the bill doesn't specify this and instead gives Ofcom the power to demand spyware downloads to check messages against a permissible database. This sets a precedent for authoritarian regimes and goes against the principles of a liberal democracy. It is seen as unprecedented and a negative shift in surveillance practices.

Counselor Lisa Robinson argues that Bill C8 and Bill C9 are not protective measures but power grabs in disguise, aimed at expanding government control at the expense of Canadians’ freedoms. She claims Bill C8, titled the Cybersecurity Act, would allow the government to seize control of telecom networks, issue secret orders, and cut off access without notifying individuals. Under C8, the government could tell internet providers what to block, remove, or silence, justified by cybersecurity and national security, effectively giving the government power to “pull the plug on your voice.” Regarding Bill C9, she describes it as the hate propaganda and hate crime bill, asserting it would let the government decide what symbols are hateful and what speech is intimidating, with prosecutors able to pursue cases for “the wrong things.” She emphasizes that C9 removes the attorney general’s oversight, meaning prosecutors could pursue hate speech actions without a second opinion or accountability. She frames this as ideology with a badge and warns it would target speech rather than stop hate, undermining free expression. She stresses that combined, C8 and C9 erode digital independence and freedom of speech, enabling the government to determine what you may say and how you say it, and to shut you down if you dissent. She warns that such power could be abused over time and that history shows powers granted in this way tend to be used against ordinary people. She opposes the idea that protecting democracy requires censoring speech, arguing instead that democracy is defended by defending the right to offend, to question, and to challenge power. Her call to action is direct: contact MPs, flood inboxes, call offices, and tell them to vote no on C8 and C9. She warns that passing these bills would not only reduce privacy but strip the freedom to discuss them, turning Canada toward a “digital dictatorship run by bureaucrats and hate speech committees.” She concludes by urging Canadians to wake up, defend freedom now, and reject C8 and C9, presenting herself as the People’s Counselor who will “never whisper the truth to protect a lie.” She ends with a plea to follow, subscribe, and share the message, and a final exhortation to stand strong and say no to the bills.

The speaker explains that hacking millions of people only requires access to their data, allowing others to know individuals better than they know themselves. This poses a threat to democracy and free markets, as it enables manipulation and prediction of people's actions. Total surveillance regimes, like those seen in Xinjiang and the occupied territories of Israel, are emerging, where a small number of soldiers can control millions of people with the help of data.

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 speaker claims Stephen Harper is the puppeteer controlling the Conservative Party of Canada through Oz Ventures, a capital fund investing in Israeli-based AI and militarized technologies. Harper is a partner and president of Oz Ventures, which has invested at least $300 million in technologies used to "eradicate Palestinians," including advanced facial recognition software like Coresight, which is being tested by the Israeli military. The speaker hypothesizes that Harper loosened banking regulations as Prime Minister to hide money offshore. They allege Harper's involvement with the IDU helps far-right ideologies in resource-rich countries, and that he misappropriated funds to invest in Oz. The speaker believes Harper is using his influence and Oz Ventures to develop weaponized AI technologies and that he controls the Conservative party at both federal and provincial levels.

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

The US government has developed a powerful technology to monitor messages in the airwaves, including those between ships and military units. While this capability is crucial for national security, it also poses a risk to Americans' privacy if it were to be misused. If the government became tyrannical, this technology could enable total control and eliminate any means of resistance. It is therefore important to ensure that agencies with this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision to prevent the country from crossing into tyranny.

Governments worldwide are following a totalitarian control agenda outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation's "Lockstep" document. The UK government, in particular, is leading the charge, secretly ordering Apple to create a backdoor for encrypted iCloud data, affecting 2 billion users worldwide. This order, issued under the Investigatory Powers Act, is a global privacy nightmare. Apple faces a difficult choice: comply and weaken encryption globally, or withdraw services from the UK. This move ties into a broader censorship agenda, including the UK's Online Safety Bill and the EU's Digital Services Act, which criminalize dissent and censor free speech. Governments are using tech companies as enforcement arms, threatening citizens for online criticism, highlighting a war on encryption and control.

The RCMP has expanded surveillance capabilities in the last 5 years, adopting technologies raising privacy concerns. Covert software infiltrates devices, accessing communications and activating cameras/microphones. Cell site simulators collect data from devices, potentially tracking innocent individuals. The speaker suggests the RCMP's actions indicate a willingness to protect corrupt politicians and a tendency towards unfair practices, leading to self-censorship among Canadians. The speaker claims that the RCMP's surveillance capabilities can cause people to curb what they are saying. The speaker equates these surveillance tactics to those used in totalitarian regimes to drive obedience within the population.

Justin Trudeau's proposed bill in Canada aims to address online harms, including hate speech and child exploitation. However, critics argue that it could be used to silence dissent and control information. The bill would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content and establish a censorship organization. It also introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment, for hate offenses. Trudeau's government has been accused of authoritarianism and limiting freedom of speech. Similar legislation is being introduced in other countries, suggesting a coordinated global effort. Critics fear that these laws could be misused to impose control on the population and suppress dissent.

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.

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.

Canada will be a police state by Christmas if parliament passes bills c two, c eight, and c nine in their current form. C two is the Strong Borders Act. It should be called the Strong Surveillance Act. It empowers Canada Post to open letter mail without a warrant, it criminalizes the use of cash in amounts greater than 10,000, and it empowers a vast army of government officials, not just police, to conduct warrantless searches of the computers and cell phones of Canadians. It is a massive invasion of privacy. It's extremely dangerous. There have been warnings that the Online Harms Act, which prior to the last election was known as bill c 63, might be reintroduced. If brought back and passed into law, you're gonna see the Canadian Human Rights Commission with massive new powers to prosecute Canadians over offensive noncriminal speech with penalties up to $50,000. You're gonna see a digital safety commission with a vast army of bureaucrats to enforce federal regulations that are passed in respect of of the Internet and Internet contents. And you're gonna see Canadians punished preemptively based because their neighbor fears that they might commit a hate speech crime in future, the Online Harms Act would authorize judges to place Canadians under house arrest, wear an ankle bracelet in respect to curfew, etcetera. Giving the federal government giving federal cabinet ministers power to kick Canadians off the Internet is not necessary for protecting public safety or defending our national security. Our freedoms are fragile. It's imperative that every Canadian contact their member of parliament, whether your MP is liberal, conservative, NDP, block, or green, does not matter. Contact your member of parliament and tell him or her to vote against bills c two, c eight, c nine, and tell them to not bring back the online harms act.

The speaker suggests turning the government's surveillance system back on them to fix the country. They propose tracking politicians' every move, including meetings with lobbyists and visits to corporate headquarters. They advocate for penalties and fines for unauthorized devices, as well as recording and publishing all conversations between politicians and lobbyists. They also call for investigating the sources of politicians' money and punishing those who profit from insider knowledge. The speaker proposes politicians wearing body cameras to monitor their actions. They argue that politicians are unreliable and corrupt, committing more crimes than any other group. They question why tax dollars are used to surveil citizens instead of holding politicians accountable.

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.