Title: Idemia: The Corporation Building Spy Grid in China, National ID in India Also Creates Drivers Licenses in the U.S. Source:
Old-Thinker News URL Source:http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2018/ ... s-drivers-licenses-in-the-u-s/ Published:Aug 22, 2018 Author:Daniel Taylor Post Date:2018-08-22 10:13:21 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:9920 Comments:55
Company that helps manufacture U.S. citizens drivers licenses brags of “building and managing databases of entire populations” across the globe.
Big Tech has gathered unprecedented amounts of personal data from millions of people. At the same time, a system of total surveillance has been constructed: Facial recognition, biometric scanning, cell phone surveillance and more have amassed a huge amount of information.
We see the stories about the growing surveillance state, but we dont hear about the gigantic multinational corporation that is helping to build the physical infrastructure supporting it.
Idemia (formerly Morpho), is a billion dollar multinational corporation. It is responsible for building a significant portion of the world’s biometric surveillance and security systems, operating in about 70 countries. Some American clients of the company include the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the FBI.
The company website says that Morpho has been “…building and managing databases of entire populations…” for many years.
Morpho has been building and managing databases of entire populations for governments, law enforcement agencies and other government bodies around the world, whether for national ID, health cards, bank cards or even driver license programs.
The company is now pushing digital license trials in the U.S. Delaware and Iowa are among five states involved in the trials this year. With the mobile license, law enforcement will be able to wirelessly “ping” a drivers smartphone for their license. The move is part of a wider trend toward cashless payment.
Idemia is assisting China and India with building surveillance and ID systems, trafficking in huge amounts of biometric data across the world.
In China, Idemia has helped build the massive biometric scanning and surveillance system that is used to keep Chinese citizens under a tyrannical boot.
The company has provided biometric payment and authentication systems to the country.
“With a sales office in Hong Kong, Morpho offers services and solutions in the field of digital identity and smart transactions. The world leader in multibiometric identification technologies, Morpho supplies biometric identification systems to Chinese police forces and government immigration agencies.”
“Morpho has also provided facial recognition systems to police agencies in Shanghai, Tianjin, Heilongjiang, Jilin, Jiangxi, Guangzhou and Wenzhou.”
In India, the controversial Aadhaar national ID card system is also enjoying the support of Idemia through Safran Identity & Security, now part of Idemia. The company states that it is “in charge of all technological aspects of Aadhaar”.
“Morpho is one of the companies chosen to take part in an unprecedented program called Aadhaar to count everyone residing in India and then assign each person a unique identification number. Morpho is in charge of all technological aspects of Aadhaar.
One of the court filings (Mathew Thomas vs Union of India) details the rise of China’s social credit system, comparing the Indian Aadhaar initiative to the Chinese program.
“The Chinese government initially permitted corporations to aggregate personal data of their customers and built algorithms that could then rate the worth of these customers. As such applications began to get integrated and large technology companies began to dominate every aspect of citizen lives, the ‘Social Credit Rating Systems’ that these companies ran became all the more pervasive.
Once this system had taken hold of the entire country, the State Council of the Central Government in China released an Outline of the Social Credit System Construction Plan (2014-2020), which specifies that such Social Credit Rating Systems would be integrated into their governance by 2020. This represents the integration of such infrastructure into the central architecture of the State, and would ensure a devastating amount of State control over its citizens”.
A disturbingly similar pattern is being followed in the United States. Big Tech (Google, Apple, Facebook) has already gathered most of our personal data. It has also absorbed around 90% of internet traffic, and is now openly allying with communist Chinese policies.
Between Idemia issuing digital drivers licenses to U.S. citizens and Big Tech’s data collection, we are inches away from a fully integrated national ID system and an accompanying social credit score.
At the moment, the United States does not have a government backed program like the Chinese. However, if gone unchecked, a de-facto social credit system could still take hold due to the pervasiveness of big tech influence.
Idemia is building the infrastructure of the massive world-wide biometric surveillance grid. Demand for “convenience” with wireless, cardless, cashless payment and shopping is driving us right into their hands.
Idemia is building the infrastructure of the massive world-wide biometric surveillance grid. Demand for “convenience” with wireless, cardless, cashless payment and shopping is driving us right into their hands.
Yes, it is. And BECAUSE convenience IS paramount in busy lives, and we WILL be going to world-wide biometric surveillance, we HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that traditional morality - which has ALWAYS only been sustained through the opacity of private life and through massive hypocrisy, will no longer work. Traditional morality and its very ineffective enforcement mechanisms will, in an efficient surveillance and enforcement state, become the chain by which every life will be subjected to tyranny.
The ONLY escape from this is to change to the laws that allow the enforcement of morality certain aspects of morality, so that things that used to be subject to censure can no longer be prosecuted at all.
We HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that traditional morality - which has ALWAYS only been sustained through the opacity of private life and through massive hypocrisy, will no longer work.
HUH??
Again I don't understood where you're coming from.
"Traditional morality" is simply Bible-based. "The Golden Rule"; Ten Commandments; The "Protestant-Ethic".
This consensus of "traditional morality" has worked extremely well for the USA...until the 1960s.
Moreover, it's "traditional", even innate that the human conscience *knows* right and wrong": Lying, cheating, murder, greed...are wrong in ALL cultures. (except in fundamentally evil ones.)
"Traditional morality" is simply Bible-based. "The Golden Rule"; Ten Commandments; The "Protestant-Ethic".
The Protestant Ethic and "Traditional Morality" CLAIM TO BE Bible based, but they are not, in fact, based on what God actually SAID. They are based on what church leaders have ginned up for their own reasons.
In any case, we're going to head into another one of these debates so I'm going to just step back and state the tactical truth.
The Democrats and the Left, and I - though I am a different side, being neither a Democrat nor of the Left - have a huge advantage over your side, because we simply tolerate individual sin in our own (and I tolerate it everybody) with a "judge not lest ye be judged" standard, and look only at the specific things that the person proposes to do. (The Democrats are perfectly happy to go after YOU guys for the same sins they commit; I am not a hypocrite and don't go after either side over sins I don't care about.) You guys demand moral purity from human beings, and seek to use moral impurity to punish your political enemies.
It never works against us, because we will not join you in punishing people for things that your Protestant Ethic says are morals crimes that we simply are not all that exercised about. So, you do not harness up juries, or the public, only your own side, which is minoritarian. So you lose those fights with us.
BUT the Left win the fights against you, because you guys are hypocrites, your leaders are men, you all have morals crimes and sins too, so you stand on feet of clay, and you DEVOUR each other when it is exposed. So, when they come at you with a morals crime of YOUR leaders, you divide and fight amongst yourselves, and you lose.
As for me, I am just as inclined to let men of the Right (Trump, the various gay Congressmen, etc.) off the hook for their sexual immorality as I am to let men of the Left (Clinton, etc.) off the hook for theirs, so I don't join in either side's witch hunts. I understand that a greater principle of human liberty is at stake, and that the Right is behaving in a short-sighted and suicidal way.
But I DO take a certain satisfaction in seeing Right wing moralizers hoist on their own petard. That so many of those men who voted to impeach Clinton for lying about a consensual blowjob - a question he should never have been asked in the first place, that government officials do not rightly have the POWER to ask - that those men ended up having their careers destroyed and retiring in disgrace when their OWN sexual immorality was revealed struck me as being eminently just, in a divine justice sense.
You have a choice: you can be a rock-solid, tradition-following Christian, wedded to your book and what the ministers have taught over the years, or you can win on the political battlefield. You want to have both, and you can't. Your side loses. I do believe in God, and I agree that he does indeed have a revealed morality, but I think that traditional Protestant Ethics are themselves not from God, not particularly godly, not holy, pure or true, so I do not uphold them, and will not stand for them in politics.
MY beliefs about God allow me to tolerate political leaders who are personally immoral on sexual matters, in the same fashion that Israelites followed the sexually immoral David and the outright sexually depraved Solomon, and God was with them.
You will eat your own in order to uphold a false set of ethical doctrines, believe that God demands that of you because badly educated and self-serving ministers told your forefathers so and nobody has bothered to actually study it deeply for themselves. And you will attack me as "ungodly" for not following your ungodly false beliefs.
Oh pooh.
You're not going to change your mind, and neither am I. Unfortunately for you, it means that you're going to have to continue to twist yourself into knots over a serial adulterer like Trump as your leader, and you'll eventually eat your own. The Democrats never will. I won't eat your allies over the things you will, but I won't tell you that I think your Protestant Ethics are godly, because they are not.
Cooperation and alliance is possible between us because I oppose abortion and euthanasia, support a reasonably strong military, want the regulatory state pared back to what is necessary (you and I will not agree on the degree of this, but we can agree on some of the foundational stuff), want law and order, and agree on some aspects of human rights. We can cooperate on those things. I'm certainly not going to rule out cooperation with you because your religious beliefs are in error and your moral code is not godly - I'm not going to enforce a purity code on you. I understand that politics is pragmatic.
I don't think you can cooperate with me, however, because you have to give me sermons from the perspective of your false religion, which I reject and do not see as coming from God at all. I see it as coming from the pens and minds of distempered men through the ages, and I am not going to pretend that I find value in their views, because I find their views in sharp conflict with what my God tells me. Your religion sounds like a Christian form of Islam to me, and I don't hear God's voice over there either.
So if my paying lip service to your religion is the necessary price for you to be able to cooperate with me politically without going on of moral harangues about your religious beliefs, then you're never going to be able to get along with me, or trust me, or see me as an ally. I am, by your definition, ungodly, evil, a servant of Satan BECAUSE I reject the truth of your religion, not in totum, but on some of the most important points that you consider fundamental to it.
We are not of the same religion. Our religions are not really all that close. I can ally with you pragmatically, and I will. But you can't allow yourself to actually ally with me, because you're a religious and political fanatic who cannot accept heresy or what you consider "evil" in your midst.
Unfortunately for you, with all of that magnificent edifice of ethics, you've got a serial adulterer and philanderer at the head of your party, and you have to support and follow him or hand the whole government over the to Democrats, whom you condemn as demon spawn.
So you have to be a hypocrite to support Trump, and everybody sees it. I don't, because I don't subscribe to your values on the matter in the first place. Trump continues to do what I care about, and I don't care who he had adultery with, or that he paid her off, or that he had adultery. That's God's rule, not mine. God will enforce it on Donald, and that is sufficient. I'm not going to enforce it and reject him, or reject any other of my friends who have had an affair, fallen down, etc. Men are men - I don't judge them for being men. You do. And that makes a tremendous difference that you can't bridge. (I can, if an alliance with you would be useful to advancing the ball of what I care about. That is also true with Muslims. I can ally with them, tactically, to advance what I care about. You have to focus on their religion. I don't.)
The Protestant Ethic and "Traditional Morality" CLAIM TO BE Bible based, but they are not, in fact, based on what God actually SAID. They are based on what church leaders have ginned up for their own reasons.
Come on, Vic. The Ten Commandments *isn't* Bible-based?? Nor is the "Golden Rule"? Nor does the Protestant Ethic exists? Since when?
They ALL exist. And became the foundation of America's economic and political freedom. AS this same ethic and "traditional morality" became a *consensus* for ALL Americans. This consensus of shared values is what had created "American". Without it, what we/are we but divided & conquered?
The "Protestant Church" isn't like the RCC; It never had ONE "religious or political Leader like a Pope. Ergo, the Good Book easily guided and conferred our common and traditional "morality" as per applicable Bible chapters and verses.
The Left - have a huge advantage over your side, because we simply tolerate individual sin in our own (and I tolerate it everybody) with a "judge not lest ye be judged" standard, and look only at the specific things that the person proposes to do.
(Wait...are you actually taking the side of The Left here??)
This "Left" etal totally take that verse ( "judge not lest ye be judged" out of context and have NO REAL idea of Jesus' intent and meaning. It's just a convenient snippet/byte used by the Left to justify their own lies and hypocrisy.
(The Democrats are perfectly happy to go after YOU guys for the same sins they commit; I am not a hypocrite and don't go after either side over sins I don't care about.) You guys demand moral purity from human beings, and seek to use moral impurity to punish your political enemies.
We MUST have SOME common consensus for morality as a nation, no, Vic?? I repeat -- without common standards for morality, we are..divided.
As to "purity", WHO exactly is demanding IT??
Look -- They/you can be as ignorant, smug, and disingenuously concerned over "sins" as need be (as well as any pretense over "Judge, lest ye be judged") because most of us know that they are FOS and care not a whit about their snark, fake belief, and hypocrisy.
What are they but...moral relativists/Secular Humanists after all. Of course they are going to rebel against "Traditional Morality". And THIS is where they go off the rails while destroying "American Consensus", aka "Traditional Morality". YOU OTOH ought to know better.
I won't tell you that I think your Protestant Ethics are godly, because they are not.
Tell it to God. He's the Author.
You will attack me as "ungodly" for not following your ungodly false beliefs.
Stop going on the offensive. You claim to be unfairly persecuted, but here you are doing the persecuting and judging. Stay on topic. Which is, "TRADITIONAL MORALITY".
I don't think you can cooperate with me, however, because you have to give me sermons from the perspective of your false religion, which I reject and do not see as coming from God at all....Your religion sounds like a Christian form of Islam to me, and I don't hear God's voice over there either.
Man. Are you this far gone?? "A Christian form of Islam"?? Bizarre.
*I* am, WE are (those who read and heed the Bible and Gospel) are followers of Jesus Christ, of God's Word (The Bible). From Moses on through to Solomon and David and Jesus and The Apostles and Paul and...finally Jesus once again (through John in Revelation).
Whose Word are YOU heeding and following? Whose Book do you read?
We are not of the same religion. Our religions are not really all that close.
The boxes *I* check off are: Personal Savior: Jesus Christ. Son of God: Jesus Christ. Gospel? CHECK. Bible written as the Inspired Word of God. CHECK. Bible Prophets = God's Messengers: CHECK. Concede that we are ALL Sinners: CHECK. Through the sacrifice of God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ we are "saved", redeemed, exonerated from Indictments and Guilt. CHECK. Be guided by Wisdom of Bible: CHECK. Realize that even Believers CAN be deceived, habitually sin, commit evil, start making up our own spiritual laws, blaspheme the Holy Spirit, commit "Abominations", and lose Salvation: CHECK.
So what "religion" am I? And what are you??
Unfortunately for you, with all of that magnificent edifice of ethics, you've got a serial adulterer and philanderer at the head of your party, and you have to support and follow him or hand the whole government over the to Democrats, whom you condemn as demon spawn.
Seriously. Are you really going here?? Into politics already?
Ok. "Demon Spawn"??
Well, 0bama, the Clintons and Bernie (Democrats all) supported BABY MURDER. It's a political party that surrounded themselves with ONLY baby-murderers (Did Trump do that with HIS close associates that help run our gummint? OR even support Baby-Murder?)
Now tell me -- WHO supported and was the REAL "demon spawn"??
Men are men - I don't judge them for being men. You do.
As usual you make broad sweeping assertions...often out of context.
We ALL "judge" men -- their character, their degree of sincerity, benevolence and general goodness and honesty. "Judging" the destination of another's soul is another issue altogether.
But while we are on that subject, the RCC CONDEMNS ALL who do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church has THE Final Word on Salvation. NOT Jesus Christ. NOT God the Father.
I'll go my way, thank you. And so will all other Christians who believe much the same as I.
Frankly, I don't know what you actually believe...and oddly, neither do you seem to have a definite handle on it. I hope and pray your confusion and spiritual chaos is clarified.
Come on, Vic. The Ten Commandments *isn't* Bible-based?? Nor is the "Golden Rule"? Nor does the Protestant Ethic exists? Since when?
Come on, Liberator. The Ten Commandments were explicitly given to Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. They are not on their face, and never have been commandments for the whole world.
This is not trivial, it's important, precisely because of the "It's in the Bible so it's all binding LAW" nonsense that you Protestants do.
Of specific importance: the Sabbath Day. It's important because, if it were intended for all of mankind, it would have nullified the commandment to fill the world and subdue it, given at creation, and it would have rendered my own ethnic tribe either non-existent or in a permanent state of sin just for existing - they live north of the Arctic Circle.
Read carefully and correctly, the Sinai Law, including the Ten Commandments, were law given to Hebrews for living as Hebrews in Israel. They are not laws for mankind, and they never were. Jesus did not release you or me from them - we were never under them in the first place.
Now, some of those Sinai laws, notably the law against shedding man's blood, were revealed long, long before Sinai. The Ten Commandments did not create that law, and Jesus did not free us from it.
Yes, it is completely true that Christian tradition has raised the Ten Commandments up as The Law for mankind, but it isn't, and it never was.
Sure, it's IN the Bible, but to apply it as law is not what the Bible SAYS.
The Golden Rule, as it is popularly called, comes from Jesus. Yes, that is certainly what we have to do, and aspects of the Golden Rule are in the Ten Commandments.
But the whole reductionist exercise regarding the Ten Commandments that is the hallmark of traditional Christianity is not acceptable BECAUSE OF the stubborn legalism to which the Protestants and Catholics then turn when it comes to St. Paul's opinion regarding "faith" versus "works", a set of words that set up disagreements over which millions of people lost their lives in a century and a half of religious war in Europe.
Certainly there is a tradition, and it is strong and has many adherents. But at root it is in very great error, and that vitiates its appeal.
Hurting people is bad. Destroying and stealing their stuff is bad. Not looking after one another is bad. All of these things are known by everybody, Christian, Bhuddist, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, Jain, and atheist alike. Did this innate knowledge come from God? Of course. We all did. Does that mean, therefore, that we must put up statues of the Ten Commandments at courthouses or have organized prayer in public schools or else we will all forget this? No, it does not follow.
Here's a common consensus for morality: hurting people is bad. Therefore, civilians shouldn't do it. And neither should officials of the government. Nobody should be hurting anybody else. It's a general rule. Unfortunately, some people WILL hurt other people, in various ways, so what do we do about it? Well, we have to discipline and dissuade those who would do the hurt from hurting, and we have to spare discipline to those who defended themselves against somebody else trying to hurt them. All of this has to be bound by rules of reason - when is it REASONABLE to use violent force in self-defense, and when isn't it.
Example: some time in the last couple of weeks somewhere down South, two guys got into an argument in a parking lot about a parking space. They yelled at each other and the bigger guy knocked the other guy down onto his butt, and stood there yelling at him. The guy knocked down on his butt drew his gun and pointed it at the bigger guy, who backed up immediately. The guy on the ground, clearly enraged, pulled the trigger and shot the bigger guy, who ran into the store and dropped down and died in front of his own child. The police declined to arrest the guy on his butt because of "stand your ground" laws. Then later they reversed themselves.
What do you get out of that fact pattern? We are fortunate to have this all on film and can see it. The sheriff's department saw the film too, and came to the conclusion to which they came. How is it possible that two people can look at that film, see what happened, apply God's standard, and come to different conclusions? How could the sheriff either not arrest the shooter, or be overruled and have to arrest him?
The problem of applying standards to human beings stands sharp and clear here.
Does it make any difference here that the combatants were both men? How about that the larger one was black? Or the fact that it happened in the South?
The police are making "I felt threatened" judgments all the time to kill people based on the fact that they are pushed by somebody who is angry at them, and they shoot a lot of people. By God's law, there isn't a different standard for them, but by human tradition and law there is a very different standard applied to them.
Where do you stand on applying a different standard to the police? I don't. I apply God's standard Golden Rule style. If you're putting a filter in there to allow the police or the army more, where are you getting that change to what God said? Not from God. You're getting it from tradition, or "reason", or any number of other things.
I won't do that. I apply God's standard straight, and it means that we need to change our view of the limits and powers of government, rejecting millennia of tradition in favor of what God actually SAID.
You won't go with me there. You'll throw up every barrier, but I'm actually applying directly.
Can we have this discussion on the terms I care about, or do we have to drag in the Church and the churches, Protestants and Catholics, the Jews, politics?
The Ten Commandments were explicitly given to Hebrews at Mt. Sinai. They are not on their face, and never have been commandments for the whole world.
So your position is that the Ten Commandments or any of God's laws, rules, documents are *only* valid to those who receive them *directly*? OR, just the Ten Commandments?
I guess by that rationale, The Father also only intended that Jesus Christ die ONLY for the sins of the ancestors of those present in Israel...since there were no Frenchmen or Chinese there at the time.
This is not trivial, it's important, precisely because of the "It's in the Bible so it's all binding LAW" nonsense that you Protestants do.
This obsession of yours...and blame-game hatred projected upon Protestants is a bit unhealthy, no?
But that said, if the Bible is NOT the word of God, conferring HIS authority, then for you, what comprises OTHER "authoritative words" of God other than in the Bible??
The whole reductionist exercise regarding the Ten Commandments that is the hallmark of traditional Christianity is not acceptable BECAUSE OF the stubborn legalism to which the Protestants and Catholics then turn when it comes to St. Paul's opinion regarding "faith" versus "works", a set of words that set up disagreements over which millions of people lost their lives in a century and a half of religious war in Europe.
Let me understand what you're claiming; According to YOU, Paul is a liar. Paul did NOT speak on behalf of God. Moreover, in your mind, "works" earns a Believer "Salvation"?
And now for one of the most absurd thing I've ever heard (and that's saying a lot given this is LF): You are actually seriously claiming that the Apostle Paul insistence in relaying a "faith versus works" message directly FROM Jesus Christ helped create the "disagreements" that led to "millions of people lost their lives in a century and a half of religious war in Europe."
Where do you stand on applying a different standard to the police?
I don't. I apply God's standard Golden Rule style.
If you're putting a filter in there to allow the police or the army more, where are you getting that change to what God said? Not from God. You're getting it from tradition, or "reason", or any number of other things.
You are flying around, popping up and about on tangents that could last beyond our natural life-span.
No, I'm not going to read every select anecdotal challenge of yours (like this one on cops and LE) because it gets away from the original point of defining the "Traditional Morality" of America.
Can we have this discussion on the terms I care about, or do we have to drag in the Church and the churches, Protestants and Catholics, the Jews, politics? I think the latter, and that's too bad.
HUH?? Whoa, Nellie.
"Terms"?? Is this a contract or surrender?
I'll be polite and just say...YOU will NOT be lecturing ME. Especially not in the context of faith.
