Digital Transition, APPLE & The Covert Spying Agenda On Americans

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by avingard
 

Comcast perfected this style of peering by 1983........yes 1983.
Checkout the New converter boxes from Comcast. They can see pimples on you @$$ across your living room

Google it google it




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by catamaran
 


New poster, actually i was once a member and avid poster... But long story. Anyway.

What if, the purpose for the camera is two fold. As someone mentioned earlier, it probably won't monitor all the time, but only when flags are raised either through keywords or something like that. or What if everyone will be subjected to the same TV message one day, and the monitoring devices are used to see how and who reacts to this forced msg?

Computers will monitor for keywords and specific reaction "types" then send for confirmation throught he eyes of a trained specialist, then sent to the "action" team to invetigate. Totally possible in my eyes.


just my .02



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
On any given night, there are maybe 100 million Americans watching TV (no source, that IS just an assumption).

So...who has the time and manpower to monitor all of us?

And, the OP says "if Apple has this technology now, the gov't has had it for years!" That's actually not the way things work in the United States, an ultra-capitalist society that depends on industry for technological advancement...

But it is fun to be scared, aint it?!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I personally don't care if my tv is watching me. First I'd wonder how the government separates the households so that we can each be identified. Secondly I'd wonder why they'd do this because there is nothing great to see on this end of the screen unless they want to see some adult action. Seriously.
What do you have to hide anyway? If they were doing this, why care about it? How many people have they got hired to monitor all this?
Why how who what when



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I certainly agree with the idea that the digital conversion is not what it appears to be. The timing of this is also very suspect. As I recall, the explanation was that they needed the bandwidth for emergency services, giving Katrina as an example. Well, in the digital age, that seems pretty ridiculous. They can filter the relevant traffic by codes. The good news is that if they are monitoring me on a continual basis I have no excuse not to fart loud and often. I hate the idea of some poor chump siting there listening to my boring life. It becomes my duty to amuse them! :->

That aside, there is also the idea out there that the whole idea of the internet is really for us to come to the "Government" telling openly about our selves. Like posting entries on a forum. :-> Want to bet there are some serious NSA number crunchers looking for evil patters out of the internet traffic. Likely the new standards on the way are to facilitate having the info scanned ie a copy of everything passed to a back channel for analysis. "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Yes the Gov. has known about this since 01, most things (like this) come out when deemed necessary.


Orwell saw it, he was a visionary. It was only a matter of time before your privacy is replaced by techno-surveillance. Your calls are monitored, your cable TV keeps records of what you watch, your computer is monitored, Gm cars with on star can be monitored and controlled, now they want your TV to keep an eye on you also. No thanks..... We wont have any say because they will tailor the systems to where you will need their hardware if you want to watch TV.
Even with the TV off, will it still monitor and report what it sees and hears?
Another example of technology used for evil under the guise of innovation.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by unknown known]

[edit on 4-2-2009 by unknown known]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by imeddieone4202003
 


Incredible! Nice Post!
There is no need to take the TV apart, the whole TV is a camera. That is amazing, a great invention, bastardized into a government spying apparatus.

THe only Solutions are:
1. Unplug the TV
2. Cover the TV while NOT in use, and accept they can see you when not covered (i.e. you are watching tv).
3. Put the TV in the Trash

It was always conspiracy theory, but the patent is very clear about how it works, you owe it to yourself to read it.

I'd say it's time to read 1984 again, I'd say it should make good read now, with all the info at our disposal. Now it's probably a checklist


Again, awesome post.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Once again, I ask why, if the cameras are sending information back to the government through the power lines, there would be a need for the digital transition.

The entire theory is unsound until that 1.3 billion dollar cog is connected to something.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
HOw many TV are there in America? I really doubt that the gov't has that much man power to watch us. The gov't cant even get their crap together i doubt the could even orgainize this,.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
There's one problem with the OP's theory --

Most people do NOT need to buy a new TV or converter for the switch-over to digital television. Cable companies are transmitting the new digital signal without the need for the end user to buy any new equipment at all.

Therefore I can continue watching on my 10-year old TV, and so can everyone else who has cable.

So perhaps the OP DID uncover some big government plan (which I doubt), but I'd say it wasn't a very good plan. If the changeover to digital television REALLY did require us all to buy new TVs or other equipment, then maybe (just maybe) the OP would have some corroborating evidence.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Time is running short folks. One must be 'prepared' for what is about to take place. They have contingencies in place, do you? One should be hyper-vigilant from here forward while 'existing' of sound mind.

Is the hand which holds the spear a willing participant? Is the alternative found post-humously?

Have your kaleidoscopal 'messages' of 'course' been encrypted as to their compass and to the benefit of whom? ref: CS-US (Pavlov)

May we blissfully walk the abysmal crator of chaos?

Have faith that, In the End, we bear witness to a better world.

Will you bear witness?



[edit on 4-2-2009 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riviera
In My Desert Eagle and Shotgun I trust.

I guess it's time to tear apart my TV's just to check lol


LOL, oh I want a desert eagle so bad. Guess I'll just have to trust my mossberg 12 gauge and SKS. But not to get off topic I find this very interesting but hard to believe also. I have not watched tv for years now and find books much more appealing in that they make me think and I don't zone out to them. Besides think of all those people with bunny ear antennas. Now they can be brainwashed and manipulated subliminally with full reception!!!! No more static and mixed signals confusing them.


Seriously though, I think this could be an attempt as stated by the OP but I do not feel that it concerns my lifestyle particularly as I understand how media and tv rules peoples minds and don't own a tv. I do own a computer and I just might rip into it but I doubt it.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I want someone to show us one person one place where this technology has been actually found, discovered, etc. It's one thing to have all the ideas there for it to work. But I think someone somewhere would have some example of this, or a mock up to show it's possible etc? Look up Stanley Meyer. While some will say he was assinated because he had and exposed HHO technology for cars, the point is we know this guy is out there. If everything he did was true and then it was all actively supressed we still KNOW about it and have something to SEE! Prove it!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I want someone to show us one person one place where this technology has been actually found, discovered, etc. It's one thing to have all the ideas there for it to work. But I think someone somewhere would have some example of this, or a mock up to show it's possible etc? Look up Stanley Meyer. While some will say he was assinated because he had and exposed HHO technology for cars, the point is we know this guy is out there. If everything he did was true and then it was all actively supressed we still KNOW about it and have something to SEE! Prove it!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Perseus Apex
the hand which holds the spear a willing participant? Is the alternative found post-humously?

Have your kaleidoscopal 'messages' of 'course' been encrypted as to their compass and to the benefit of whom? ref: CS-US (Pavlov)

May we blissfully walk the abysmal crator of chaos?

Have faith that, In the End, we bear witness to a better world.

Will you bear witness?


Whooooah, dude, that's like, deep.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Part 1 of 2:


Originally posted by thrashee
First off, thank you for posting the citations for these figures. I always like to get the "facts" first before continuing.


You're welcome, and that's understandable. However, sometimes I get irritated by the tone of demands for proofs from debunkers/skeptics, regarding things that are nowhere near implausible considering the political climate and the history of such matters. I have to ask myself when people demand proof, whether they sincerely need convincing or whether they are just trying to discredit and cause interference in a productive conversation. Besides, this is a thread, not a debate.




Ok....again, what's happening in the UK is happening in public places, so there is still no correlation to invading and spying on people in the privacy of their homes. You're assuming that this type of monitoring is nefarious to begin with, and extrapolating from this assumption to assume that home surveillance will be next. People tend to get paranoid about the idea of being recorded....which I understand to some degree, but there's a point where you really have to ask yourself, so what? Are you worried that some state official may see you picking your nose or pulling out a wedgie? Do you really think the government is that interested in your personal life? Or might it be more likely that such surveillance is meant to be both a deterrent for crime, and a potential source of evidence should a crime occur?


I'm not sure if by "You're assuming" you meant me or OP or all of us concerned here. If you mean me or all of us, I can say for my part that I'm not sure I think it's going to extend into our homes. I do think you're naive if you assume video cameras are not nefarious. That's your prerogative to think the government is all warm fuzzies and isn't in the business of controlling people. We could argue about that one all day. I also think your thinking is a bit narrow or concrete in that you want specific proof for everything OP discussed possibly happening.

You can want proof if you're so inclined, but sometimes we on ATS happen to sit around reasonably extrapolating. According to dictionary.com, extrapolate means "to infer (an unknown) from something that is known; conjecture." Infer means "to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence." And assume means "to take for granted or without proof." So, you stated "You're assuming that this type of monitoring is nefarious to begin with, and extrapolating from this assumption to assume that home surveillance will be next." Nobody is "extrapolating from assumptions to assume"; that doesn't even make sense. They may be extrapolating, period, while reasonably concluding that intentions may be nefarious. The indoor surveillance issue and the intentions issue have parts that do and do not overlap, so it's not purely a matter of causal relationship anyway. (I.e., it's still a worthwhile discussion about the right to privacy even if we can't undoubtedly prove that which you claim we assume). In any case, extrapolation is a method of coming to conclusions based on trends in existing data. No "assuming" about it. Assume implies that there is no proof. Maybe posters here are extrapolating, and not from assumptions but from previous data about the surveillance behavior of government and a host of other data about government modus operandi.

I can't give you the proof or the lovely quotes out there about freedom and privacy (because I've got stuff to do), but I can say this for now: Most or all of our private communications via technology already can be or are being recorded (see Carnivore, Eschelon). You can say the same thing about that - "Well, why would the government want to know what we say in every email and phone call?" Exactly. So, in the same vein, why would they want to know what we say and do in the privacy of our home? Same reasons. It will fall under the "war on terrorism". The more info they can get, the better, as far as they are concerned. It's all there in the Patriot Act and companion laws. Do you know about Fusion Centers? Look that one up. The government continues to look for ways to make information as efficient and connected as they can. Fusion Centers is one example. And why should the government watch me pick my nose or pull out a wedgie, as you say? No, I don't want strangers peeking in my house while I do that or anything else.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Part 2 of 2:


Incidentally, you willingly take this chance every time you step into virtually any store today. It's really no different.


But it is different, if you mean being surveilled in public or in private. People say things in the privacy of their homes that they wouldn't say out in public. I know people who censor what they say on the telephone out of awareness that we're never truly alone on the phone. This isn't about anything illegal, but simply talking about government or NWO or whatever it is we know they don't approve of us discussing. So, I'm fully aware when I'm out that cameras abound. Sometimes I wave to the camera to make light of it. So what you say isn't true. It's not the same, and people tend to act different when they know cameras are around. Don't ask me for the psychological study on that - maybe you can look that one up.

And as for the crime deterrent, the government in the UK has admitted that the cameras don't deter crime. Yet they want to expand the CCTV program. That is from one of the links I provided earlier in the thread, actually. Again, I'm not going to prove that to you. I've done enough research today. Besides, if you believe all this suffocating surveillance is only to deter crime than you have a lot more research to do than just for this thread alone. (Quelling dissent and keeping control are some reasons that come to mind.) If you don't value privacy, then I guess you will be one of the ones who have no problem if it ever gets to the government peering in on your private home activities.


Now let's turn to the reasoning behind "what's happening in other countries will be implemented here". Do you have any concrete reason to believe this, or are you extrapolating (making assumptions) again? I doubt very much, from a technological perspective, that there is anything about what the UK is doing that the US cannot already do right now. So again, just because the UK is doing it doesn't mean the US will. There is no causal support for this whatsoever.


Again, extrapolation does not equal assumption. I wouldn't say I'm doing either, but if you want to put me in a box I'd say extrapolation is more fitting. I'm merely observing trends. There is a global trend toward more surveillance (as well as censorship) lately. It doesn't take much proving, but we could have a whole thread on that. And if I'd bother laying out an elaborate argument then I'd rather do a formal debate and get points for it so I can get a cool profile picture. (Half kidding, but that's a lot of work to get lost in a sea of posts.) Besides, it's not so much what the US can't do, but what the US can get out of watching a country who's ahead of us in the surveillance society department. For whatever reasons, it is happening faster in the UK than over here. Those same reasons would influence the swiftness, or lack thereof, with which the US could implement similar goals over here. Debunkers use those same arguments all the time, "Oh, if the US could do that they would be doing it already." Not so easy. There are things that must be put in place, and a population that needs to be made more submissive before more control can be imposed with greater chance of success. As for concrete reasons, I'm not going to spin myself in circles digging them up for you. I simply notice trends and I'm done proving everything I say tonight.


So I don't know for sure that these DTV boxes are going to be used to spy on us, but I think it's possible. Your presentation of rigid thinking would have us deciding one or the other right now. I prefer to be flexible in my thinking, so I can be prepared for things that are likely to happen while understanding that none of what any conspiracy theorist (or mainstream thinker) may happen the way they think it will. Anyway, I think the burden of proof is really on you to prove these wild assertions of your own. And I see from your threads that you are probably a full-time skeptic on ATS, which can be a huge waste of time for people like me if we do things like defend ourselves in every little thing members like you want to argue about. I will chalk this up to a lesson learned, and try not to repeat this mistake in the future.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by wintermarches]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wintermarches
You're welcome, and that's understandable. However, sometimes I get irritated by the tone of demands for proofs from debunkers/skeptics, regarding things that are nowhere near implausible considering the political climate and the history of such matters.


I understand, but likewise, us skeptics get tired of OPs that start off extrapolating, and end with doomsday warnings and any number of seemingly definitive statements. I generally try to sift between those who admit they are merely stating an opinion or "just an idea", and those that literally treat their extrapolations as some kind of call to arms.



I have to ask myself when people demand proof, whether they sincerely need convincing or whether they are just trying to discredit and cause interference in a productive conversation. Besides, this is a thread, not a debate.


Again, I understand. But I'll be honest with you: the majority of threads like these tend to have some kind of ripple effect--as you can see here, you've got people polishing guns and amping up the paranoia. I don't see that as productive, honestly. Granted, I know not all are serious, but it's sometimes astounding to me how easily people react off these things without asking the same types of questions I asked first.



I do think you're naive if you assume video cameras are not nefarious. That's your prerogative to think the government is all warm fuzzies and isn't in the business of controlling people. We could argue about that one all day. I also think your thinking is a bit narrow or concrete in that you want specific proof for everything OP discussed possibly happening.


Let's not jump to a hasty generalization here; just because I'm not too worried about cameras doesn't mean I think the government is an omnibenevolent enterprise. Some of the crap that happened under Bush is downright scary.

If I could sum it up quickly, my take on it would be this: a lot of threads on ATS regarding such matters tend to think our lives and our private affairs are even important enough for the government to care about. To me, it's a kind of arrogant self-assertion that we matter. Of course we matter, but really, are we that special that the FBI is tuning into our gossip about the next door neighbor?

That's the biggest reason why I'm not concerned. I have no reason to be. My life is like any other mundane American life. I hate the principle behind being spied on, but my life is so categorically uninteresting for any secret agent that I'd get a chuckle out of how bored they must be.



In any case, extrapolation is a method of coming to conclusions based on trends in existing data. No "assuming" about it. Assume implies that there is no proof. Maybe posters here are extrapolating, and not from assumptions but from previous data about the surveillance behavior of government and a host of other data about government modus operandi.


I think you're playing definitions to a degree here, because coming to a conclusion from known trends is still not proving something, is it? You may have evidence, but whether that evidence is proof is another matter. Anyway, I concede that my word choice was poor.



So, in the same vein, why would they want to know what we say and do in the privacy of our home? Same reasons. It will fall under the "war on terrorism". The more info they can get, the better, as far as they are concerned. It's all there in the Patriot Act and companion laws.


The Patriot Act is a wretched by-product from Bush, and I can only hope that Obama repeals it. I'm assuming we can both agree on that. And I agree that the Patriot Act is an alarming erosion of our civil liberties.

But I still must maintain: even under the Patriot Act, they weren't hitting up random people for the fun of it. There were still reasons to investigate certain people. And as far as I can tell, there's pretty much nothing about me (unless ATS counts) that would arouse their suspicions. That doesn't make it any less scary, but it doesn't mean I'm really that worried about it. Like I said, the worst that may happen is that they hear me talking dirty to a girlfriend. None of their business, but not the end of the world.



Do you know about Fusion Centers? Look that one up. The government continues to look for ways to make information as efficient and connected as they can. Fusion Centers is one example. And why should the government watch me pick my nose or pull out a wedgie, as you say? No, I don't want strangers peeking in my house while I do that or anything else.


I will look them up. Hey, I don't want them to be either. But then, I don't think they will be. Even with whatever may be going on, none of it is reason for me to be that alarmed.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   


I know people who censor what they say on the telephone out of awareness that we're never truly alone on the phone. This isn't about anything illegal, but simply talking about government or NWO or whatever it is we know they don't approve of us discussing.


Do you see where the assumptions start coming into play here? Let's say that the government is listening in for whatever reasons.

Why are you scared to talk about the government or the NWO? Have you forgotten that we have a right to free speech here in America? We're not North Korea, for God's sake. What's honestly the worst that could happen in this situation? They put you down on some kind of watch list? So what? You're not going to get whisked away in the middle of the night for discussing some NWO, or detained indefinitely for talking about how the government works.



Quelling dissent and keeping control are some reasons that come to mind.


Technically speaking, quelling dissent and keeping control is a part of deterring crime. Unless you mean otherwise, in which case I'd like to see some examples, please, of these cameras being used to inhibit free speech or demonstration. And how exactly are these cameras controlling people?



If you don't value privacy, then I guess you will be one of the ones who have no problem if it ever gets to the government peering in on your private home activities.


I do value privacy. I hope the government isn't spying on me, both for my sake and for theirs. But you know what? If they really want to, they're going to anyway. Why waste time being paranoid about it? Again, if they are spying on me, that doesn't mean they'll whisk me away to jail for speaking out against the President. They'll never do anything to me (besides invade my privacy), because I'll never be doing anything to warrant some kind of arrest, which would be illegal anyway (since they're spying on me).




There are things that must be put in place, and a population that needs to be made more submissive before more control can be imposed with greater chance of success. As for concrete reasons, I'm not going to spin myself in circles digging them up for you. I simply notice trends and I'm done proving everything I say tonight.


See, there is an assumption right there--"a population that needs to be made more submissive". The rhetoric here is assuming an unproven premise--that the US will engage in any kind of spying/control program to begin with.



Your presentation of rigid thinking would have us deciding one or the other right now. I prefer to be flexible in my thinking, so I can be prepared for things that are likely to happen while understanding that none of what any conspiracy theorist (or mainstream thinker) may happen the way they think it will.


This is something conspiracy theorists always mention casually, but never practically define in a meaningful way. Tell me, how is keeping this idea in the back of your mind going to make you any more prepared? Prepared for what? What practical advantage are you going to have over anyone else? How are you going to become "informed", so to speak, that your suspicions are correct, thus enabling you to exact whatever it is you're claiming is your plan? What is your plan? How can you plan when you don't know what you're planning for?

Sorry, end rant.



Anyway, I think the burden of proof is really on you to prove these wild assertions of your own.


Sorry, but this is the very first (and most often committed) mistake in these forums. I've even dedicated threads to it in order to better prepare those who don't quite get how logic works. If you make a claim, then the burden of proof is on you (the "you", in this case, is the OP, not you personally). You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I'm guessing you already know this.

As for wild assertions...you mean like stating there is likely nothing to be worried about here? That our new digital signals are not likely to be used for spying on us? I confess, I'm finding it hard to see what is so "wild" about that.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 03:56 AM
link   
With reference to the UK being a CCTV superstate here are a couple of examples that might be of interest...

Preparing for the Olympics 2012

Using Thermal Imaging for the Global Warming CON

The UK Govt is introducing a new CCTV system that can automatically monitor any vehicle/person wherever you go within a certain area.

The thermal cameras as above link are not to help you insulate your homes. It is for use to catch people growing pot.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join