Digital Transition, APPLE & The Covert Spying Agenda On Americans

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary


Could it be that Wells made a true mistake by writing "1984" because it provided a road map for the government to follow?


George Orwell wrote 1984 not Orson Welles, who read War or the Worlds on radio.




posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by delius

But isn't that the point of requiring people that don't have cable, etc. to get the new technology that the gov't is subsidizing at such a great expense?

By the way, I have a really old, old, old tv connected to cable, fairly close to my newer tv, (close enough to be able to hear them both at the same time), and when they are both on the same channel, there is definetely several seconds of delay on the newer tv......?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Maybe the new box itself has the technology that would allow the gov or whomever, to spy..............why else would they fund it to make it easier for people to afford it? I heard O wants to give it out for FREE to people who can't afford it.
 



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by nicholaswa

Maybe these could do it

This one is already running


Military Supercomputer Sets Record
Published: June 9, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO — An American military supercomputer, assembled from components originally designed for video game machines, has reached a long-sought-after computing milestone by processing more than 1.026 quadrillion calculations per second.

The Roadrunner supercomputer costs $133 million and will be used to study nuclear weapons. The new machine is more than twice as fast as the previous fastest supercomputer, the I.B.M. BlueGene/L, which is based at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.


www.nytimes.com...


and this one is coming


(PhysOrg.com) -- The U.S. Government has contracted out IBM to build a massive supercomputer bigger than any supercomputer out there. The supercomputer system, called Sequoia, will be capable of delivering 20 petaflops (1,000 trillion sustained floating-point operations per second) and is being built for the U.S. Department of Energy.



The U.S. Department of Energy will use the supercomputer in their nuclear stockpile research. The fastest system they have today is capable of delivering up to 1 petaflop. The system will be located at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., and is expected to be up and running in 2012.


www.physorg.com...

 



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Maybe the new box itself has the technology that would allow the gov or whomever, to spy..............why else would they fund it to make it easier for people to afford it? I heard O wants to give it out for FREE to people who can't afford it.
 


Most people don't need a new box, a new TV, or ANYTHING...

...60% of the U.S. has cable TV...25% has satellite TV (Dish Network, DirectTV, etc.). That's 85% of the people in the U.S. who WILL NOT NEED to buy any new equipment. If you get your TV through cable or satellite, you don't need to get any new epuipment -- your old TV will work just fine as it is.

The only consumers being affected by the changeover to digital are the 15% of Americans who still use an antenna to get their TV signal. They are the ones who need to by a converter.

So, like I said, if the digital TV change is some master plan by the U.S. government to spy on us through new TV equipment, then it is a very poor plan, since hardly anyone even needs to buy any new equipment at all.

[edit on 2/5/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I just wanted to say thanks for all the great input everyone is contributing to this thread, i posted this topic to raise the awareness that its a known fact that our government loves to spy and collect intelligence. As previously stated the government openly admits to recording EVERY voice and digital transmission wether it be Landlines, Cell Phones, Email, Texts, faxs & instant messages. And now you still ask why would they care what i do and say in my own house? Alot of people know that their phones are be recorded so they would be even more open with their sensitive conversations when in the 'privacy' of their own home. The technology is here, of course the government will utilise this..

Thousands of image sensors placed inbetween the liquid crystals, with the ability to record anything in view of the screen, WITHOUT a camera, WITHOUT a lense, Without any visual indication the screen is a recording device, and they can even zoom in! im trying to get people to question their governments motives and actions, but some still continue to shoot the messenger.....

Once again thanks to all who are contributing...



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Can u post a link for your 60% and 25% stats?



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknown known
Can u post a link for your 60% and 25% stats?

per your request...


Cable TV:
Historically, cable is the most popular household video entertainment medium in the United States. As of June 2006, more than 59.1 percent of U.S. households have cable service.

Satellite:
Satellite growth is occurring rapidly (25 percent of U.S. homes have satellite). Although it remains less prevalent than cable, satellite has had an impact on cable growth across the country.

Link: www.connectmycable.com...

AND


Counting homes that do not subscribe to either cable or satellite, the TVB says dish services are now in 25.2 percent of all TV households. Cable operators are in 61.3 percent of all homes.

Link: www.tvpredictions.com...




[edit on 2/5/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I came across this video someone made of a Magnavox TB110MW9 Digital to Analog Converter claiming that it has both a microphone and camera inside it
Can someone with some electronics experience comment on that please. People were saying the camera appears to be mounted to a transistor which isn't feasible and I saw some other videos claiming its a hoax busting it






posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I really don't understand why people find it so hard to believe the government would want to spy on its citizens for no apparent reason, seeing as how they already do it...


The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

“It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.


Video would be a much more efficient method of surveillance, since it's now common knowledge/belief amongst even regular, non-conspiracy oriented people that the government listens in on phone calls, making them more apt to censor themselves while on the phone. Video surveillance would give insight into how people function and act regardless of what they say, something that really can't be gleaned from listening in on phone calls - especially if the goal is to find terrorists, who likely don't divulge their plans on the phone, or talk in code at the very least. As for wondering who would watch, I'm sure they would appoint a team of people to do so. Many metropolitan areas already do this with CCTV:


D.C. police are now watching live images from dozens of surveillance cameras posted in high-crime parts of the city, hoping to respond faster to shootings, robberies and other offenses and catch suspects before they get away.

Since August 2006, the city has installed 73 cameras across the city, mostly on utility poles, at a cost of about $4 million. But until recently, officers were using them mainly as an investigative tool -- checking the recordings after crimes were committed in hopes of turning up leads and evidence.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said she thought the department wasn't making the most of the technology and was missing opportunities to more quickly solve crimes -- or even stop them in progress. "I thought, 'Why the heck aren't we watching them?' " Lanier said.

And so, for about 40 hours a week, a small team of officers in the department's Joint Operations Command Center watches the live feeds from 10 to 15 of the cameras. They choose locations based on the latest crime trends -- focusing, for example, on areas in Southeast Washington beset by gun violence.

The District is following cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, where police have actively monitored live camera scenes for years.


Is it really so far fetched to think that the government would seek out a more efficient means of surveillance in the name of "fighting terrorism" or some such? I'm not saying that's what the DTV switch is for, but it doesn't seem like it'd be much of a stretch to imagine.

As for most people not even needing the converter box, that's correct. However, most people I know erroneously believe that unless they have a flat screen TV, then they need the converter box. I'm not sure why they think that, but they do.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nameless Hussy
Video would be a much more efficient method of surveillance, since it's now common knowledge/belief amongst even regular, non-conspiracy oriented people that the government listens in on phone calls, making them more apt to censor themselves while on the phone.


No it wouldn't; this is patently stupid logic here. Video requires an exponential amount of resources to both collect and monitor same said amount of resources. Of course no one is mentioning this, because we'd all like to believe the federal government is comprised of an unlimited amount of resources with an unlimited amount of time; but such people are, frankly speaking, stupid.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


Wow, way to respond to and refute my post. And with such civility. Or not - on all counts.

Anyways, I stand by what I said: video is an infinitely more efficient means of surveillance than listening in on phone calls or some of the other *known* ways the US government has spied on its people. I certainly didn't say anything about the government having "unlimited" resources (a suggestion which, to borrow your terminology, is patently stupid), nor did I say I was certain that this DTV switch necessarily had anything to do with surveillance (although, since we're talking about resources, I'd say the amount of resources expended for this DTV switch seems excessive if it's solely about moving to a better technology - especially in this economic climate). That said, besides an initial investment, video wouldn't require more of an "exponential amount" of resources than current surveillance methods (which currently requires resources for both collection and monitoring), and the important consideration which seems to be whooshing right over your head: the roi yielded would be vastly greater. I'm not sure how that is "stupid" logic. Me thinks you don't actually understand what logic is, nor what stupidity is. Which I find to be rather... ironic.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   


Wow, way to respond to and refute my post. And with such civility. Or not - on all counts.


Shrug.



Anyways, I stand by what I said: video is an infinitely more efficient means of surveillance than listening in on phone calls or some of the other *known* ways the US government has spied on its people.


Infinite? Are you sure you want to claim it's infinitely more efficient? Since you're obviously not as stupid as I suggested in my previous post (which was directed at your logic, not at you personally), then you obviously understand that something which is infinitely more efficient than something else would by definition be so efficient it's beyond our ability to grasp. I'll let you take a moment to think that one over and allow you an opportunity to modify this argument, as I'm sure we all can agree that any type of resource draining activity could not be infinitely efficient.

Moving on, why exactly is video surveillance more efficient than monitoring phone calls? You claim this but provide absolutely zero reasons for this supposition. Phone calls can be recorded, video can be recorded....but to get what you need, you need a human being monitoring or playing back both. I'm curious what your logic here is.



I'd say the amount of resources expended for this DTV switch seems excessive if it's solely about moving to a better technology - especially in this economic climate).


You know this move to digital technology began quite a few years ago, right?



That said, besides an initial investment, video wouldn't require more of an "exponential amount" of resources than current surveillance methods (which currently requires resources for both collection and monitoring), and the important consideration which seems to be whooshing right over your head: the roi yielded would be vastly greater.


Really? So now the government is getting feeds of information from EVERY home in America, but you don't see a raise in the amount of surveillance? None at all. Really?

Furthermore, nothing is "whooshing over my head" other than vapid statements with absolutely no support behind them. Please demonstrate or support how the ROI would be greater. Let's think about this one rationally for a moment: imagine the resources required to monitor and/or review video feeds from virtually every home in America. Regardless that you seem to think this is easy-peasy, we're talking about the federal government here, something that, as anyone who has ever worked in a government field knows, is inefficient by nature.

So what kind of "find" do you imagine will recoup the costs of such resources? What scenario is flitting around in your head that will justify all the costs associated with such an endeavor? You think a few sleeper cell terrorists will be outlining their next attack while having a re-run of Seinfeld playing directly in front of them, at such an angle that their maps, their plans, can all be viewed? Is that how you see this going?


I'm not sure how that is "stupid" logic. Me thinks you don't actually understand what logic is, nor what stupidity is. Which I find to be rather... ironic.


Hopefully you understand better now. No irony needed.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by thrashee]



posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by unknown known
 


just to clarify...george orwell wrote 1984...not orson wells...but yeah...I know what you mean...



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by avingard
The problem with this theory:

1) I have never seen anything resembling a recording circuit (video or audio) inside an lcd tv, and I have seen the internals of several.

2) The problem with any conspiracy revolving around the transmission of data is this: The information being collected would have to be sent back to 'home base' via your coax cable. It would not take that much effort to rig an intermediary device to store all data sent over said cable and examine it.

So how could this conspiracy be perpetuated if the data can be intercepted by anyone? Someone would eventually find it, even if it was encrypted and hidden.

The digital transition is to free up the frequencies being used for analog and because it is truly a better medium. Whereas the number of stations broadcast by analog is limited, the number transmitted digitally is limited only by the speed of data transmission.

Produce one of the following:

a picture of a camera or microphone inside of an lcd tv and include the model of the tv.

Or data intercepts proving data is being recorded and transmitted back to your provider.

Definately. Frankly I don't know of many covert conversations in front of a TV but you can guess what some people do when watching TV late at night
Let's say they do have surveillance systems inside the TV's...they would have to have a lot of people watching hours and hours of people picking their noses and doing other things.

Camera's inside the actual box would be completely pointless. There wouldn't be enough FOV for anyone to actually gather intel.

But if its to "combat terrorism" the terrorists have gone back to the Stone Age. They are fighting men from the future and they know it. (yes Body of Lies is one of my favorite movies) bugging TV's wouldn't do much against them. For us if the boxes are sending out data as said above anyone can get that data. It's not impossible if you think about it. Even if it is encrypted someone will find out. The TV guys haven't been back to either of my houses so I doubt my box has bugs in it. Wasn't there a thread about this earlier claiming to have pictures of devices inside their boxes?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by imeddieone4202003
 


Power line transmitision would not work!

Data transmitisions via coax cable works because the cable company has set up an address for each home. When your cable sends info to the cable company to request a pay-per-view movie, the cable company knows where the request comes from and and can authorize that cable box to play that movie and change the correct account. Same technology that is inside any computer. Now every cable box has a network adapter inside that will identify it to the network that it is on. Open one up and they are easy to spot the chips necessary to operate. Power line network devices have the same structure. These Network adapters provide what is called an IP address.

Here is where your theory of power line communication falls apart.
If the HDTVs are capable of doing power line data transmitisions, it MUST have an address on the network, there fore it must have a network adapter. If you have two of these tvs in yous house, you will have to have some kind of network router that can assign IP addresses. It is impossible to have two devices on the same network with the same IP address, and since there is only one main supply of power comining into the house, there would have to be a router inside the house. If there was such a thing, it should be easy to spot.

Finding a device/chip/daughter board inside the TV set that works or acts like a network adapter would not be hard for some one who knows what to look for. Without such a device, no data transmitision could ever get out.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
I came across this video someone made of a Magnavox TB110MW9 Digital to Analog Converter claiming that it has both a microphone and camera inside it
Can someone with some electronics experience comment on that please. People were saying the camera appears to be mounted to a transistor which isn't feasible and I saw some other videos claiming its a hoax busting it




More compelling evidence that needs to be looked into, can a camera be mounted on a transistor?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by nwosigns
 


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

Are you refering to the patent for the new technology, or the old?

Can you point me to the patent you are refering to or link it please?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by delius

But isn't that the point of requiring people that don't have cable, etc. to get the new technology that the gov't is subsidizing at such a great expense?

By the way, I have a really old, old, old tv connected to cable, fairly close to my newer tv, (close enough to be able to hear them both at the same time), and when they are both on the same channel, there is definetely several seconds of delay on the newer tv......?



Thats interesting, i wonder why the several seconds of delay just because one tv is newer. is it lcd?





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join