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.

Speaker 0 raises concern about Instagram sharing a link to cdc.gov and foregrounds what a QR code can reveal. He says the QR code that people have holds a lot more information on them than they may think, noting that this is Canada’s QR code but many countries have a similar thing. He enumerates the information embedded in the QR code: - Religion - Organ donor - Driver’s license - Marital status - Nonessential access - Reserved for future use (a note that there is information planned for future use) - Allergies - Gender identity - Smoker - Sex - Are you a firearms owner? - Are you a restricted firearms owner? - Are you do you have any warrants? - Then, what’s your credit score? - How many accounts do you have? - How much do you owe? - What did you make this year? - What did you make last year? He asserts that this is how much information the QR code will have and that it will be the social credit system on steroids, if not a carbon copy of it. He claims this is what people are being—implied to be—subjected to, and that the only power this system has is the power you give it. He concludes with: If everyone refute.

Speaker 0 says body cams ensure behavior because "we're constantly recording and reporting everything that's going on." He argues the first AI step for government is to "unify all of their data so it can be consumed and used by the AI model," bringing health data, EHRs, and genomic data into a single platform; the UAE has rich data, the NHS data is fragmented. He insists "data centers ... need to be in our countries" for privacy and security, likening them to airports and ports. He forecasts: "the last year you will ever log on to an Oracle system with a password" and "biometric logins" that use voice recognition and even "index finger on the return key." He cites ransomware with FBI advice to "Just pay them because there's nothing we can do about it." Speaker 1 adds: "there's an amazing opportunity to reimagine the state, the way that government functions, and the service that it can provide for its citizens."

Speaker argues digital ID is being pushed with investment to force voluntary adoption, and that without it, it will fail and is the cornerstone of UN Agenda 2030; programmable, surveillable money and digital ecosystems depend on it. They compare to vaccine passports and urge planning to avoid compliance, like avoiding vaccine mandates. In the US, conservatives are framed as solutions to illegal migration and voter fraud; biometric IDs pitched as addressing cybercrime and societal ills. Digital ID is seen as essential to social credit scores and Orwellian designs. The speaker says convenience is used to ensnare people into compliance: opt-in smartphones, voting for two evils. The carrot approach may come with a stick; people have power and should act locally to opt out, starting with no to digital ID to avoid biometric surveillance state, predictive policing, precrime, and health care prevention measures and emergency use authorizations. We can opt out.

The discussion claims that “beneath” the White House is a high-compute facility—a data center—and that the “reflecting pool project” may be part of the plumbing used to cool it. The speaker frames this as a claim supported by “a pretty big stack of evidence.” The speaker says the first questions are why such a facility would be built under the White House and whether it could even be built there. As an example, they cite Israel’s biometric government database, described as storing parts of individuals’ bodies used as identity markers such as face and fingerprints. The speaker says Israel sold the system as safer passports and better ID cards by stopping fake documents, reducing identity theft, and making borders safer, while also describing it as an apparatus holding “every bit of you,” rather than a normal database at a passport office. The speaker quotes Israel’s biometric database authority as stating the purpose is to ensure every person has one official identity—their “true identity”—and claims the database is kept in a physically secure facility monitored 24/7 with security procedures at every level commensurate with “top secret.” The speaker adds that the “clearest version” is set up underground in Jerusalem, describing it as involving a large underground data center built by Binet, and reporting that SeaTek reported it held government servers tied with the population registry database containing citizens’ biometric information. The speaker states that Larry Ellison’s Oracle set up its Israel cloud region with Binet inside the Jerusalem site, and that Oracle is planning a second Israeli data center nine stories underground. They attribute this to Safra Katz, saying Israel needs a secure cloud. They connect this to Ellison’s prior efforts, citing a 2002 New York Times opinion piece advocating copying government database information into a single national security database combined with biometrics (thumbprints, handprints, iris scans) to detect false identities. The speaker says the focus is on the “back end” rather than the name of the infrastructure, and notes that Oracle is building a supercomputer called Solstice through the Genesis mission, described as a classified-capable supercomputer with over 100,000 Nvidia GPUs and allegedly “no clear permanent home,” leaving its eventual location unknown. Finally, they link this back to the reflecting pool by arguing that a facility like this would have physical needs: power in and heat out, and that “one of the most practical ways to move heat is through water.”

Speaker 0 says it is “a literal QR code” that will be used to create a “biological vaccine passport system” in which people “won’t use your phone” to enter stores or travel. Instead, the system would use a wrist-based implant: material embedded in the body. Speaker 0 describes the technology as a “very dangerous vaccine platform” meant for wide-scale rollout. They say it was first developed and funded by Gates in 2019 through a study of “quantum dot implants,” described as “a micro needle patch array.” The patch is said to be “like a bandaid,” applied to the wrist; it “dissolves” and “installs these quantum dot materials that last for at least five years.” Speaker 0 then claims that in 2025 Gates funded another study showing how advanced the technology has become. They say the micro-needle patches can install “literal quantum dot qr codes” that can be “read with ai” using specialized cameras. They add that the decoded information could include “store batch information [and] lot number,” as well as “how many doses you receive.” Speaker 0 concludes that this system is planned for “manual wide scale deployment for another pandemic,” and that the QR-code-related system “lasts… for years, perhaps permanently.”

The digital ID provides government the ability to track, analyze, predict, and control a person's private activities. It is the antithesis of individual freedom and will not require an implantable chip as many have feared for decades. Evidence clearly shows that biometrics such as fingerprints and facial scans will do the job much more efficiently. And the aftermath of the COVID lockdown shows us how it will be deployed. During the COVID era, governments said that masks were recommended, while private companies said no mask, no entry. And the public overwhelmingly complied, but not with an overreaching government. They complied with the grocery store to buy food, the airlines to travel, and their own banks to access money. Looking back, it is quite clear. The COVID lockdowns provided an opportunity to beta test digital ID compliance through private company mandates and helps normalize the use of QR scans and facial pics for entry into private businesses. And it proved to be a success. Now we are seeing the same techniques being used with the rollout of the digital ID. The gold standard for biometric regulation was written in 2008 as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and is being replicated all over The United States. It mandates that private entities obtain written consent before collecting biometrics, disclose their policies, and destroy data after a set period. And most importantly, it exempts government entities entirely, allowing state and federal government to collect and utilize biometric data while passing the liability to private corporations. These laws have been met with over a thousand class action lawsuits since 2015, which resulted in the standardization of consent prompts in apps and services, such as a firm's biometric consent, which now states by clicking accept or proceeding, you consent to collection of biometric data. Click a button and you're in the new system. If government were to mandate the digital ID, it would predictably ignite mass protest. We can see this happening today in The UK. The United States will avoid this by utilizing the private sector in what appears to be voluntary action. The FBI's Clearview AI has harvested over 30,000,000,000 faces from social media. And because Clearview is technically a private company, the FBI has access to all this without the need for asking. In over 43 states, the Department of Motor Vehicles have sold driver's license photos to private firms who resold to local police for facial recognition. The government doesn't need to mandate biometric ID, which would most likely be considered a violation of American rights. And so it outsources the mandate to private companies who are legally required to get consent, while the government is free to collect and utilize this data under legal immunity. Just like the COVID era, you will be free to give consent. But if you choose not to, you will have to leave the reservation and find a way to fend for yourself. Greg Reiss reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreese.substack.com.

Speaker 1 says essential digital infrastructure must be secure and sovereign: "one of the most important things is not to put the digital infrastructure in place and make sure it is secure. And often, it needs to be sovereign." Data centers must be in our countries due to privacy: "Data centers, because of the privacy requirements around the data, need to be in our countries or they're not terribly useful. They need to be in our countries, but they also need to be secure." They foresee a passwordless future: "This is the last year you will ever log on to an Oracle system with a password." "By the middle of this year, I'm quite certain you are Tony Blair." Security will rely on biometrics: "The security system, we have biometric logins. The computer recognizes you." "There's no reason to enter a password. In fact, passwords are too easily stolen." They warn about ransomware: "The data centers and data is being taken hostage all over the world." "The ransomware business is a very, very good business." And a preemptive approach: "not after the data is stolen, but before the data is stolen. We can make sure that we're using the latest security technology, and it is going to be biometrics assisted by AI to make sure that you are, in fact, Tony Blair, and I'm sure you are."

The speaker argues against digital IDs, listing 20 concerns: functionality creep into immigration, healthcare, banking, voting, driving, and travel; loss of anonymity; government overreach; it won't stop illegal immigration; it would rely on phones; enforcement could be undermined by cash-paying employers; single point of failure; government as the nexus of verification; a state surveillance honeypot; inevitable future abuses by any regime; massive cost and bureaucratic drag; marginalization of those unable or unwilling to comply; UK previously rejected ID cards; examples of failures in other countries (India ANWA, EU database); authoritarian temptations; excuses for illegal immigration and labor; burden shifting to citizens; ratchet effect; not for stated reasons but globalist aims; alternative is zero-knowledge proofs where individuals hold ID; digital IDs from the state are a horrendous idea and must be stopped.

The UAE is positioned at the forefront of using AI in government. The conversation highlights the importance of building basic digital infrastructure—cloud services, data centers, and digital identity—as a foundation for an effective digital system. Speaker 1 emphasizes that securing this digital infrastructure is crucial. He predicts a passwordless future, stating that this could be the last year you log on to an Oracle system with a password. He describes biometric logins where the computer recognizes the user, can verify identity through voice, and may prompt for a fingerprint on the return key. He argues there is no reason to enter a password because passwords are too easily stolen. The approach involves using the latest security technology, with biometrics assisted by AI to ensure authentication. He concludes that this will verify identity, even asserting that the system can make sure that the user is, in fact, Tony Blair.

A “total reset” would mean resetting an entire person’s digital life. Once a foundational identity is in place, it would be interoperable across systems. The transcript describes biometric facial recognition as a legal identity: if a person’s face appears on a CCTV camera, that face is treated as the person’s legal identity, indicating the person’s presence. The transcript then compares this to actions in countries such as Russia, describing a draft system “random” and “a lottery.” If someone is selected, the person would be seen on CCTV cameras, and authorities would come “get you.” The speaker says they were not aware of that connection. The transcript frames losing biometric identity as more extreme than losing other identifiers. It contrasts losing a social security number or registration number with losing biometric identity, and states that it is unclear how biometric identity is “got back.” It then poses a trust question: if a privacy app were being funded by the US government, would that make people trust it more or less? It also criticizes Western surveillance framing as delivering “1984” and says the point of end-to-end encryption is undermined if a keyboard logs everything a person does. The transcript concludes with a call to secure devices—“do your phone and your laptop”—so the person can continue using Bitcoin “before they start verifying your age for that.”

A speaker discusses India's nationwide digital ID system, Aadhaar, and chip away at the assurances given by officials who praised its rollout. The speaker notes that about a week or so earlier, Kirstjarma met with Prime Minister Modi and top officials in India to extol the benefits of digital ID, highlighting Aadhaar and claiming a fabulous nationwide rollout. The speaker then presents a troubling counterpoint: cybercriminals are claiming they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—describing it as the database of 815,000,000 people with details such as names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more. According to these claims, the criminals are currently selling the entire database for $80,000 at a time. The speaker acknowledges uncertainty about verification but states that this story is circulating and raises questions about security. The core concern is about how secure the system will be when every facet of a person’s life could be held in one place: passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal records, bank details, every transaction, gas and electricity bills, travel records, flight records, car tax, council tax, and any arrest or hospital appointment information. The speaker asks whether we can trust the people running these systems to keep data secure, given the frequency of data breaches and data thefts, including several large incidents in the past year in the country. The concern is framed as a general warning about the viability of a centralized digital ID system that aggregates extensive personal information, and how well it would function in practice if it were compromised. A specific anecdotal point is raised: India’s example is cited as a real-world instance of the system’s security challenges, with the speaker encouraging listeners to look up the incident. The speaker notes that Star Lord was out in India holding up India as an example of how well the system could work, referencing a perceived contrast between the praise and the security breach claim. The segment closes with a skeptical modulo—“Right, Kia. We believe you.”—casting doubt on official assurances. In summary, the speaker highlights a purported massive data breach claim against India’s Aadhaar system, questions the security of a centralized digital identity that consolidates extensive personal data, and contrasts official praise with concerns about data vulnerability and trust in those who manage such systems.

They're rolling out digital ID even when people don't want it? In The UK, over 2,000,000 people said no. We don't want it. The government's response? We're gonna do it anyway. And now the line is no digital ID, no jobs. They said you will not be able to work in The United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It's as simple as that. Just a reminder, pilot programs always start somewhere and then scale to the rest of the world. Today, it's The UK. Tomorrow, it's where you live. They will market it as if it's for your convenience or your safety, like they are doing now by saying it's to tackle illegal immigration. But once your likelihood is tied to a QR code or a government app, your freedoms can be taken away with the flip of a switch. Now it's just for a job. Soon it will be banking, travel, grocery shopping. You will be completely under control.

Speaker 0 explains that these groups have invested heavily to find excuses to push digital ID, urging voluntary adoption. They argue digital ID is the cornerstone of the entire UN Agenda 2030; without it, programmable, surveillable money and many online designs won’t work, and they frame it as something people must comply with, even though it’s pitched as voluntary. They compare digital ID to vaccine passports, suggesting that to change the direction of the world, people must plan to live in a way that avoids compliance with digital ID, just as one might navigate around vaccine mandates. In the United States, conservatives are portrayed as being pitched digital ID as a solution to illegal migration and voter fraud, while claims are made that biometric digital ideas are presented as essential to solving cybercrime, hacking, cyberbullying, and other societal ills. The speaker contends that digital ID underpins social credit and other Orwellian designs that are part of the agenda. A key theme is that the push relies on convenience: opting in is convenient, having money on a phone and a life centered on a smartphone is convenient, and voting every four years is convenient but framed within a system of “two lesser evils.” The speaker argues this convenience is a carrot used to enslave people, while resisting adoption is inconvenient and requires changing one’s life to be more resilient and sustainable for families and communities. They call for reconnecting with neighbors, meeting in person, and reducing online dependence to build real human connections and solutions. The speaker notes that during COVID, lockdowns contributed to isolation and pushed people toward virtual-only connections controlled by those who own the infrastructure, software, and platforms. The claim is that the power to set up digital ID resides with those investing in it, and people should reclaim power by actions in neighborhoods and families and by saying no to digital ID and the surveillance state. There is concern that digital ID enables not only real-time surveillance but predictive capabilities about future behavior, with intelligence agencies pursuing predictive policing (precrime) and extending similar predictions to health care to prevent the next pandemic, potentially eliminating the need for pandemics to be declared to justify emergency use authorizations or mandates in communities. The overall message is to opt out of digital ID, recognizing that this is the world some are trying to create, and that opting out is possible.

Apple has released a digital ID for identification and US passports. Reports say they will be merging their biometric security with encrypted ID storage and plans to replace physical IDs across airports, apps, and businesses. This is said to be used at over 250 TSA checkpoints across domestic airports for identity verification. The speaker mentions one of the richest men on earth, Larry Ellison, who owns TikTok and Oracle and is a big fan of digital IDs. It seems like one big master plan between all the big tech companies. Microsoft dealing with OpenAI, OpenAI dealing with NVIDIA, NVIDIA dealing with Oracle, xAI dealing with NVIDIA, and OpenAI just did a $38,000,000,000 deal with Amazon for cloud storage. So the question is, what are they really planning? Could it be that they're following in the footsteps of China's Skynet, tied to digital IDs, a social credit score, and an AI surveillance system that they actually wanna put on the moon. Skynet. Why does this sound familiar? That's because it's the same name as the killer artificial intelligence in Terminator, Skynet. I'll say it once and I'll say it again, it's always in the movies. Make sure you guys go to my YouTube, Maverick Approach, I do more breakdowns on this, but let me know what you guys think about all this down below.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the UK government’s rollout of a national digital ID, presenting it as imminent and not merely a future possibility. Speaker 0 states that the government is rolling out a national digital ID in the UK and asserts it is happening now, not something to consider for someday. Speaker 1 reinforces the opposition to digital ID, urging a rejection of it. Speaker 0 reports that they are outside BBC Broadcasting House for a digital ID protest, framing the event as a mobilization against the rollout. Speaker 1 warns that saying yes to digital ID could lead to an inability to say no to the government ever again, not just to the current government but to future ones unknown. Speaker 0 recalls assurances that national ID cards were dead and not representative of Britain, noting that the modern version is not a plastic card but a “live connection.” Speaker 1 calls on people to raise their heads out of complacency, asserting that humans are not data and emphasizing that the issue concerns everyone’s freedom. Speaker 0 contends that what is happening is an attempt to funnel humanity into being a number, implying a loss of individuality. Speaker 1 describes a future where the ability to earn, move, buy, or speak is not a right but a permission, and permissions can be switched off, framing this as a consequence of Digital ID. Speaker 0 summarizes the topic as Digital ID: how it started, how it is being sold, and what life looks like behind a biometric paper.

The transcript argues that a digital ID system would allow the government to track, analyze, predict, and control private activities, describing it as the antithesis of individual freedom. It asserts that an implantable chip is not required, and that biometrics like fingerprints and facial scans would work more efficiently. It references the COVID-19 lockdown as a demonstration of how such systems could be deployed, noting that masks were recommended by authorities while private businesses enacted entry restrictions, and the public largely complied with private mandates to access essentials like groceries, travel, and banking. The claim is that these private mandates served as a beta test for digital ID compliance, normalizing the use of QR scans and facial recognition for entry into private businesses, and that this was deemed a success. The speaker describes the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008 as the gold standard for biometric regulation, saying it is being replicated across the United States. The Act allegedly requires private entities to obtain written consent before collecting biometrics, disclose policies, and destroy data after a set period, while exempting government entities from such restrictions. It is claimed that these laws have resulted in over a thousand class-action lawsuits since 2015, which purportedly led to standardized biometric consent prompts in apps and services, such as consent statements like by clicking accept or proceeding, you consent to collection of biometric data. The argument continues with a warning that a government-mandated digital ID would likely provoke mass protest, citing the UK as an example. It contends the United States will avoid a direct mandate by outsourcing to the private sector, creating a system that appears voluntary. It is claimed that the FBI’s Clearview AI has harvested over 30,000,000,000 faces from social media, and that because Clearview is a private company, the FBI can access this data without direct government action. It is asserted that in over 43 states, Department of Motor Vehicles offices have sold driver’s license photos to private firms that resold them to local police for facial recognition, implying that the government can collect and use biometric data via private entities under legal immunity, without a formal mandate. The piece concludes that, as with COVID-era practices, individuals will be free to give consent, but if they choose not to, they will be constrained. The report is presented by Greg Reiss. It notes that The Reiss Report is fully funded by Substack subscribers, inviting readers to subscribe at gregreese.substack.com.

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.

The speaker argues that people are fleeing to Mexico to escape government tyranny, corruption, taxation, and high food prices, and claims Mexico is responding by requiring mobile users to register their phones. He states: “Mexico is telling a 130,000,000 mobile users, register your phone or it goes dark,” noting the claim as voluntary but comparing it to coercive tax compliance. He recalls 2008 reforms (the renout) that collected phone data, which allegedly led to a massive data leak sold on black markets. In 2022, he says the plan resurfaced with barometrics, fingerprints, and facial scans. According to the speaker, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled prior attempts unconstitutional because they were too evasive and dangerous, likening it to building a criminal record for simply having a phone. He fast-forwards to January 9, 2026, when a new law allegedly passes requiring every SIM—prepaid, postpaid, and eSIM—to be tied to an identity. He describes an upgrade: a “CURP barometrica” that goes beyond name and number to include face, iris, ten fingerprints, and a digital signature. The claim is that you don’t just have an ID anymore—you become the ID. The speaker asserts this data isn’t stored in a distant vault but connects to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and a national card database, effectively creating a criminal record built on you. He contends there will be no notification, oversight, or transparency about who can access it. He says the stated purpose is missing persons, but he dismisses this as false framing, suggesting the history shows otherwise. He warns that whenever the government says the measure is for safety, the real purpose is control. He predicts anonymous SIM cards will disappear, journalists will be tracked, activists flagged, and ordinary people logged and searchable in real time. He frames the move as the third attempt, each time larger, broader, and more evasive, with a central aim of tracking people through a “barometric” digital ID that, once built, won’t go away. He cautions to observe the pattern, noting the evolution begins in Mexico and will spread elsewhere, presenting this as a blueprint for global digital identification and tracking. The speaker, Mike Martin, concludes with a firm assertion: “I have spoken.”

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 0: The speaker argues that digital ID is bad and that the government is coming for children by announcing digital ID cards for 13-year-olds. They claim this is not a good thing because children have the right to grow up in privacy, to come of age, to explore, to experiment, and to make mistakes, with everything they do logged, tracked, and documented into a device that will follow them for the rest of their life and potentially discriminate against them. They say digital ID will document things like skill reports, mental health issues, behavioral issues, accomplishments, and failures, and that having so much information about a person before adulthood would make it easy to build systems that profile people based on socioeconomic background, behavior, and psychology, determining what type of citizen they are before they have a chance at life. They posit that as a parent you raise your children with boundaries, ethics, and moral, but the government has its own ethics, morals, and boundaries. They claim the government will have the power to give a child a bus pass, a bank account, access into entertainment venues, and a work permit when they turn 16, and the government can decide what makes a child applicable for that. They ask who should raise the child— you or the state. They argue that assigning a QR code to enter a playground and another to go skateboarding normalizes surveillance as safety for children, and that future generations could be convinced to accept more surveillance and control because they have been conditioned since childhood to see it as normal. They acknowledge pushback, noting some may call the concerns exaggerated, but they insist there is no reason to think digital ID will be used ethically, and they insist digital ID is forever. They challenge the idea that the last 500 years of humanity justify the next 500 years as superior, and say the government cannot provide a solid explanation for this institutional change. They dismiss migration as “bollocks” and claim the only justification given is convenience. The core claim is that the refusal to provide a straight answer hides a motive: control, plain and simple. The speaker concludes that there is an opportunity to change history in a positive way, and that opportunity starts with individuals choosing not to comply and saying no, for the sake of their kids and future generations.

Key claims cited include: "It will stop illegal migration." "The United States just stopped illegal migration without digital IDs." "If the digital ID were to actually link social media vaccine records and bank accounts, that would allow governments to censor and control the population." "Real IDs contain embedded microchips that bring us one step closer to digital IDs." "Those mobile driver's licenses or MDLs are digital IDs, and they're just one more link in the chain." "A YouGov poll found that UK opinion towards digital IDs was 42% in favor and 45% against." "The good news is that the backlash to the digital IDs appears to be strong and growing, and real corruption is on display."

Digital ID: what could possibly go wrong? The transcript recalls Kirstyama’s recent visit to India to meet Modi and top officials, promoting India’s nationwide digital ID system called Aadhaar. It then presents a provocative claim: cyber criminals are reportedly saying they have stolen the entire Aadhaar database—815,000,000 people's details, including names, addresses, identity confirmations, bank details, and more—and are allegedly selling the database for $80,000 at a time. It notes uncertainty about verification but says the story is circulating. The speaker emphasizes concerns about security and the practicality of such a system: if every aspect of a person’s life—passport, driving license, NHS records, criminal record, bank details, all transactions, bills, travel and flight records, vehicle taxes, council taxes, hospital appointments, arrest records, and other personal data—are stored in one place, how safe and secure can it be? The question is raised of whether the people running these systems can be trusted to protect data, given ongoing data breaches and thefts, including several large incidents in the past year within the country. There’s a rhetorical comparison to India’s example, suggesting that this is a test case for the security of a highly centralized digital ID system. The speaker notes that StarMove had previously used India as an example of how well such a system could work, implying skepticism about that portrayal with the closing line, “The ironic thing is that StarMove was just out there holding them up as an example of how well the system could work. Yeah. Right, Kia. We believe you.” Key points: - Aadhaar is India’s nationwide digital ID system. - Alleged theft of 815,000,000 Aadhaar records, with claims of selling the data in chunks for $80,000; verification of this claim is uncertain. - The aggregation of extensive personal data in one system raises concerns about security and trust in the guardians of the data. - Data breaches are frequent, including notable incidents in the past year. - The India example is presented as a cautionary reference, contrasting with prior praise from StarMove.

Independent journalist Michael Schellenberger has been digging into the digital ID issue. He just released a lengthy piece on Substack called Public. He joins us with his thoughts. Michael says: The argument that digital IDs help thwart illegal immigration, ID fraud, streamline health care services sounds fantastic. But what’s the problem? Michael responds: Hey, great to be with you. Yeah. Another conspiracy theory that has started coming true. We saw this announcement in September. The World Economic Forum had been pushing digital IDs, the United Nations, the European Union, Britain. Of course, the really terrifying example is China, which uses digital IDs and a social credit score to control speech and to control what people think and say online. It could come in a lot of different ways. They’ll start voluntary, then they’ll make it mandatory. They’ll have rewards, and then they’ll have punishments. It’s quite terrifying. And when you listen to what the advocates for digital IDs say, it’s terrifying. And, you know, Laura, one thing I learned from this last round of investigations is that this is a huge cybersecurity threat. The idea that, I mean, imagine if you get hacked in one of the many websites that you log into. Imagine everything suddenly being hacked because it’s all centralized in a single place. That cybersecurity threat alone ought to be enough to kill the digital ID. But, again, this is potentially digital totalitarianism.

The speaker argues that Trump is promoting digital ID and biometrics to address immigration, warning listeners not to be tricked into a control grid. They caution against canceling the Fed and ending up with the BIS and IMF. Biometrics and a digital ID are described as methods to deal with immigration problems that the federal government created, yet the speaker says these measures would trap people in a control grid, and notes that “that’s not a bad thing” to point out this risk. The speaker claims Trump’s cabinet includes many people who were “basically part of the syndicate” trying to build the control grid. Before getting enthusiastic about Republicans, the speaker insists they must hold their feet to the fire and demand that they reverse the control grid.