We Must Love Our Surveillance...right?

We've had some kind of microchip in our debit/credit cards for some time.

I was having some money issues about 7 years ago, and decided to cut up my debit card. The card was pretty well worn (hence the money issues). Because the card was so worn, you could clearly see some kind of microchip becoming exposed behind where the hologram was.

I then went on my merry way making cash withdrawals. Sure enough, about a week later I needed to pay a bill online and couldn't use cash. I decided to use the account information from my card that was auto-saved for that particular website.

To my surprise, the information came back as incorrect -- even though just a week prior the same saved information that always auto-fills did work.

Who knows how "they" knew I cut up my card...?

*cue twilight zone music*

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We've had some kind of microchip in our debit/credit cards for some time.

I was having some money issues about 7 years ago, and decided to cut up my debit card. The card was pretty well worn (hence the money issues). Because the card was so worn, you could clearly see some kind of microchip becoming exposed behind where the hologram was.

I then went on my merry way making cash withdrawals. Sure enough, about a week later I needed to pay a bill online and couldn't use cash. I decided to use the account information from my card that was auto-saved for that particular website.

To my surprise, the information came back as incorrect -- even though just a week prior the same saved information that always auto-fills did work.

Who knows how "they" knew I cut up my card...?

*cue twilight zone music*

RFID sensitive, packet sniffing wi-fi enabled garbage cans. Yup.

If the NSA needs to spy on my yahoo e-mail
they would need to go through 118 pages of porn spam first.

Better make a fresh brew of coffee boys
it's gonna be a long night.

I live in South Florida and on both the turnpike and I-95 roughly every mile there is polls with camera's on them. I could understand if they had them before and after exits but they have them every mile.

Why would that be needed? Considering our roads, bridges, ect are falling apart it is alrming they are wasting money on this.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
I live in South Florida and on both the turnpike and I-95 roughly every mile there is polls with camera's on them. I could understand if they had them before and after exits but they have them every mile.

Why would that be needed? Considering our roads, bridges, ect are falling apart it is alrming they are wasting money on this.

To catch more fines for their pockets?

Peace

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
As a citizen with nothing to hide, I really don't notice all the surveillance that occurs around me on a daily basis, nor do I really care.

As far as my digital footprint, well, that's where things are different. I take certain measures to make sure I leave as little a digital trail as possible. Not because I fear what they might see, but because I don't feel it's any of their business to to know what my opinions are, or who I correspond with.

I'm guessing you're young and don't have any context for the fallacy of your position.

"As a citizen with nothing to hide..." is the core premise that's flawed.

Why?

Because those in power have the ability to shift overnight what "something to hide" means. For example, from 1933 to 1975 the U.S. government declared it illegal to own gold.

If the U.S. could ban gold, what else is possible? A ban on cell phones? Social media? Soft drinks?

When the lines are shifted, and suddenly it's declared you do have something to hide because the government says you do, then maybe you'll "get" why 24/7 surveillance is a bad thing in the hands of the government.

Unfortunately the people were never given a choice. The surveillance state was instituted under president Bush, supposedly because of 9/11, and these measures that are designed to keep us "safe" have been in place ever since. Some of these earlier projects were completed more recently, and some new measures have even been instituted under Obama. Seeing as how we have both democrat and republican presidents and members of congress pushing the same agenda, albeit with a slightly different spin, it starts to seem as if the issue is not partisan. We know that the main forces driving political decisions, especially on the congressional level, are money, power, influence, personal relationships, etc., or offshoots of these factors, and when it comes to something exceedingly large like the surveillance state it could not be accidental. There has to be some driving force behind it.

It could be claimed that national security is the driving force, but the fact remains that all of these systems combined have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism. We never really had a problem with terrorists striking in the US to begin with, and in fact, the US actions in the Middle East have made things worse. Such a surveillance system would be more necessary now than it was when it was instituted, which is funny considering there was much more emphasis placed on the danger we were supposedly facing during these earlier times. But it is still useless considering the cost to benefit ratio, not to mention the rights it is taking away from the people. And as I was saying, something so large cannot just happen. And the policies of Bush and Obama were not the same, so it appears to me that we are not dealing with a policy issue either. I contend that the motivating factor is money.

So many companies have made so many billions of dollars from these political measures that it is crazy. And who are the ones who get any government contracts for large sums of money? Those who are connected to those in power. A striking example is found between Bush and those in his administration, people like Cheney, and their association with companies like Halliburton. What it boils down to is war profiteering. What does this have to do with the topic at hand? It is related precisely because the US government contracts out to so many companies, where a variety of fields are concerned, especially when it comes to the surveillance state. I have not researched this matter in particular, but I would be willing to bet that if one were to go back to the Bush presidency and follow it through to the Obama presidency, they would find that many of the large and major contracts relating to the surveillance state have been awarded to politicians serving under both administrations. This is only natural, considering that Washington is set up this way. Our political system is about a lot of things, but it is not about doing what is right for the American people, or benefiting the US and its citizens. It will be spun this way of course, if push comes to shove, but it is malarkey. It is an "out" so to speak. I'm sure these guys say "if we ever get caught, and someone is actually willing to prosecute (not likely), then we will say 'this.' "

Anyway, getting closer to the original topic, people were not asked whether they wanted such surveillance. Although the government did try to persuade people that this is what was best for them, and this was done simply to ensure that no huge public backlash would ensue. All you have to do is ensure that the majority won't rise up against something, and you can get away with it. A certain percentage will speak up loudly, but not in large enough numbers to matter. The bottom line is that the government knows it can get away with this stuff, because people don't care enough. As long as they don't start affecting the daily lives of the majority, they could almost do anything and get away with it. Their biggest threat comes from the good politicians, of which there are very few, but usually there would not be enough evidence to prosecute. Even if there was, all it takes is to grease the right palms, considering there are so many individuals that would be involved in the legal proceedings, and the case is dead before it gets anywhere. And one of the main ways they get away with really bad stuff is to simply never let the truth see the light of day.

You wonder why there are 28 pages of the 9/11 report that have never been seen? You wonder why they did not even mention pertinent information in that report? Or how they did not include pertinent information when conducting an investigation into the Kennedy assassination? By omitting certain pieces of the puzzle they make it virtually impossible to get to the truth. But we know we are under a surveillance state, yet what can people do? The government also keeps a sufficient portion of the population afraid, making them more docile and compliant. This is partly why we have constantly been at war since 9/11. And this is exactly why the MSM fear-mongers. They do it to divide the population, and instill fear. How many positive stories do they show on the news compared to negative stories? All of these MSM organizations are owned by a select number of individuals, and most of them are financially connected not only to politics, but to the wars and conflicts, and they have a stake in ensuring that the people go along with such acts. I believe in physical rebellion against the US government, as did our Founding Fathers and some of our more intelligent presidents, and we have the right to take such action. However, we must exhaust all other options before resorting to such measures. Even though things would have to get extremely bad for enough citizens to actually fight for their freedoms and rights, which have already started disappearing with the advent of the surveillance state. We have not even scratched the surface of the non-violent methods at our disposal, and likely never will. Even those who claim to care and wish to institute change are not doing anything about it. What can they do? Anything that is going to be done needs to be done with huge numbers of people. If you are going to write to a congressman for instance, you need tens of thousands of like-minded people to do the exact same thing, regarding the exact same issue, just as an example.

I don't like it but the moral majority rules. I guess it keeps people honest unless you have the money to lobby the government.