• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Big Bro is Collecting, Analyzing and Pattern-izing YOUR Behavior!

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

ufology said:
There is no doubt that terrorist cells exist, that they have done us harm, and that the the legal provisions we're talking about are intended to prevent more harm in the future. There is also no doubt that the job isn't simply about radiation detectors and the one obvious guy at the scene with his finger on the detonation switch. It's about the fact that to prevent the scene from happening in the first place, the people who investigate terrorism need information, and that information comes from people. So if there is sufficient reason to believe that someone is part of a terrorist plot and has information that could prevent a major disaster, our agents need to be able to get that information as fast as possible without being ham-stringed by bureaucracy. It's just that simple and many lives could depend on having that ability.

Those who oppose giving our people that ability cry "fear mongering", but they're just being hypocritical. They're the ones trying to convince us that we'll all be enslaved in work camps by some sudden transmutation of our country into an evil facist dictatorship. Is our system perfect? No. But it's no where near that bad, and if it weren't for the real crazies out there who use our freedoms against us to accomplish horrific goals like 911, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Of course then you also have conspiracy theorists who believe 911 was perpetrated by our own government. Well call me naive again, but I think it's more reasonable to believe that the vast majority people involved with our national security aren't crazy, wouldn't fly airliners into our skyscrapers and actually do care about the welfare of the public at large ... so give 'em what they need to do their job to the best of their abilities.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that there are MANY people who truly hate us and want to do us harm. I also do not believe we'll be enslaved in work camps.

Still, any entity that allows itself such a wide berth in defining what a "threat" is while also being able to make a large profit by handling "threats" is simply going to decide that more and more things constitute a "threat". This isn't hypothetical, as we've already seen an agent formerly employed by the NSA get charged under the Espionage Act simply for admitting something that the NSA has denied. This is meant to show that the government will prosecute or otherwise "disappear" anyone who speaks about something they do not want noticed. Combine this with the very real threat of indefinite detention coupled with a system that is designed to make certain no one can remain anonymous under it's guise of stopping "threats" and you have a system that can be abused for political or capital gain.

The NDAA did not specify "terror threats" nor did it specify what constitutes a "threat to national security and stability." Do you believe that the attorneys who wrote this act could not better define threats that could harm scores of people? Defining who can be prosecuted and held indefinitely as anyone who poses a "threat to national security and stability" is designed to be as vague as possible so it can be applied for whatever "threat du jour" is needed by those in power.

Do you believe that if someone was truly a threat, he would need to be held indefinitely without trial? Why can't the facts against that person be used in a court of law? When laws can be suspended indefinitely and due process completely ignored, who gets to decide what threats are so serious that there is no need for evidence? Can you honestly say that Every Single Politician who has or will ever hold power can determine this, even if it's your life on the line?
 
RenaissanceLady said:
I have absolutely no doubt that there are MANY people who truly hate us and want to do us harm. I also do not believe we'll be enslaved in work camps.

Still, any entity that allows itself such a wide berth in defining what a "threat" is while also being able to make a large profit by handling "threats" is simply going to decide that more and more things constitute a "threat". This isn't hypothetical, as we've already seen an agent formerly employed by the NSA get charged under the Espionage Act simply for admitting something that the NSA has denied. This is meant to show that the government will prosecute or otherwise "disappear" anyone who speaks about something they do not want noticed. Combine this with the very real threat of indefinite detention coupled with a system that is designed to make certain no one can remain anonymous under it's guise of stopping "threats" and you have a system that can be abused for political or capital gain.

The NDAA did not specify "terror threats" nor did it specify what constitutes a "threat to national security and stability." Do you believe that the attorneys who wrote this act could not better define threats that could harm scores of people? Defining who can be prosecuted and held indefinitely as anyone who poses a "threat to national security and stability" is designed to be as vague as possible so it can be applied for whatever "threat du jour" is needed by those in power.

Do you believe that if someone was truly a threat, he would need to be held indefinitely without trial? Why can't the facts against that person be used in a court of law? When laws can be suspended indefinitely and due process completely ignored, who gets to decide what threats are so serious that there is no need for evidence? Can you honestly say that Every Single Politician who has or will ever hold power can determine this, even if it's your life on the line?
Click to expand...

You make fair comments about the downside. I can't say that I have no fear that these isolated incidents won't become more prevalent. And on a fundamental level I really don't like the idea of a police state, but the counterpoints I've been making are also valid. Not all police or FBI, NSA ( whatever ) are bad people and the vast majority of the time there is some reason for suspecting someone. Just have a look at the FBI's most wanted list. They are not nice people. Still, we don't want to resurrect McCarthyism. So the issue isn't as simple as either side would like to portray, and I honestly believe it's far more likely that my life would end up on the line because of some criminal than because I had been accidentally tagged as a terrorist sympathizer. And if I were to be brought in on such a suspicion over a legitimate threat, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions they had. What bothers me more are small erosions of our rights that go unnoticed, like the power of the police to fine you and seize your vehicle on the mere suspicion you might be impaired, or the mandatory installation of smart meters in people's homes or else they'll shut your power and water off. How many people can live without electricity and water? Why should their only choice be to have a government transmitter installed inside their homes? At least with these other programs, most of the data gathering equipment has to be outside or in a public place. Lastly here's a video that shows just how lenient our civil rights laws are with respect to the issue of those who might be suspected of being involved in some kind of terrorist network:

 
Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength


barcode-tattoo-wrist-Favim.com-285124.jpg
 
Last fall, I argued that the violent reaction to Occupy and other protests around the world had to do with the 1%ers' fear of the rank and file exposing massive fraud if they ever managed get their hands on the books. At that time, I had no evidence of this motivation beyond the fact that financial system reform and increased transparency were at the top of many protesters' list of demands.
But this week presents a sick-making trove of new data that abundantly fills in this hypothesis and confirms this picture. The notion that the entire global financial system is riddled with systemic fraud – and that key players in the gatekeeper roles, both in finance and in government, including regulatory bodies, know it and choose to quietly sustain this reality – is one that would have only recently seemed like the frenzied hypothesis of tinhat-wearers, but this week's headlines make such a conclusion, sadly, inevitable.
Click to expand...

Read the rest here: This global financial fraud and its gatekeepers | Naomi Wolf | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

What has this got to do with Trapwire and Big Brother? Well the two are one in the same when we are talking about the power elite.
 
Big Bro is not the only nosy neighbor on the block. On a lark, while playing around with the google play market on my android phone (another data snitch) I did a search for hackers anonymous and not surprisingly, there IS an app for that

Anonymous Hacker Group - Android Apps on Google Play

what is surprising (I think) is the number of "permissions" (data access folders) the app requires in order to be installed. The app description does state it's the unofficial app which is a no brainer as it is unlikely anonymous would ever green light an official app. My guess is given the intrusiveness (?) of this app if it ever comes to the attention of the group, they would hack into this site as well.
 
You'd think that with all this high tech detection they could catch the people who are illegally dumping truckloads of garbage across the street from us.
 
That LED hat is just brilliant, will be adding one to my ninja bag.
But i have to think if i walked into a bank wearing it, i'd have security popping out to cop an optic face to face.
 
mike said:
That LED hat is just brilliant, will be adding one to my ninja bag.
But i have to think if i walked into a bank wearing it, i'd have security popping out to cop an optic face to face.
Click to expand...

it's very refreshing to see people coming up with ways to thwart this privacy invading system. Even the idea of being anonymous is refreshing, but not very realistic in this 1984 type scenario were In.
 
So to play devil's advocate here ( again ), let's suppose you get a bunch of people with these hats get on a train that has been targeted for some kind of terrorist attack, all you are going to do is make yourself into a bright shining target, while at the same time obscuring the cameras view of other people, including the potential bad guy ( who may not even be wearing one ). And here's another ironic thought, suppose you're attacked by a bad guy and you can't prove to the police when you report it that you are the victim in the video because you're wearing one of those stupid hats, so the bad guy never gets convicted. Or suppose you get falsely accused of some crime and normally you could prove your innocence because you were captured on a video camera someplace else ... but doh! ... you were wearing that stupid hat ... there goes your alibi. With my luck that's what would happen to me long before I'd ever get hassled over some glitch in their software that cross referenced me with someone on a watch list. In fact I've been falsely accused twice and had to take a lie detector. A video proving I wasn't there would have been really handy.

So far as I'm concerned, I'm a good person and I have nothing that needs obscuring. So if suddenly I become so important to someone that they want to track my every movement ... well fine go ahead ... put me on T.V. I don't care ... they could put my face on a giant screen in Times Square for all I care ... It would actually be kinda cool. Just stop and think about it. Why would they bother with some no-name boring law abiding citizen? There's just no reason. It's totally pointless. All the same I think a complete IRLED suit would be awesome. Imagine the fake ghost video you could put on YouTube and Ghost Hunters.
 
Once we surrender our freedoms (which many of us surrendered because we were just so scared, darn it), it's all but impossible to regain them.

The understanding of what defines a "threat" will always expand to justify domestic spying, enable gigantic "defense" contracts and punish those who want to reform the system. If any system is in place that allows for abuse, it will be abused. We have already seen this happen against government whistleblowers so we should understand that it's not a large step before it's being used to punish political activists and entire political parties. If you were a multi-billionaire who essentially funded and therefore owned entire political movements and the parties they support, do you think you wouldn't insist such systems be used against your enemies? Who would say "no" to you?
 
Back
Top