The Mark: Scientist Claims Human Microchip Implants Will Become “Not Optional”

Untitled288

And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.…

THIS IS A VIDEO

Image: Microchip (Wiki Commons).

Revelations 13:16-17

Technologies designed specifically to track and monitor human beings have been in development for at least two decades.

In the virtual realm, software programs are now capable of watching us in real time, going so far as to make predictions about our future behaviors and sending alerts to the appropriate monitoring station depending on how a computer algorithm flags your activities. That is in and of itself a scary proposition.

What may be even scarier, however, is what’s happening in the physical realm. According to researches working on human-embedded microchips it’s only a matter of time before these systems achieve widespread acceptance.

Chances are you’re carrying a couple of RFID microchips now. And if you are, they’re sending out a 15-digit number that identifies you. That number can be picked up by what’s called an ISO compliant scanner. And they’re everywhere, too.

It’s not possible to interact with society in a meaningful way by not having a mobile phone. I think human implants are likely to go along a very similar route. It would be such a disadvantage to not have the implant that it essentially becomes not optional.

Video Report:

 

The Mark: Scientist Claims Human Microchip Implants Will Become “Not Optional” by TAT’S 2 MIN NEWS

Your initial reaction to this idea may be one of disbelief. There’s no way society would accept such a device. Why would anyone want to implant this in their body?

Consider for a moment where we are right now. For decades Americans rejected the notion that they would submit to being tracked or recorded.

Yet, just about every American now carries a mobile phone. They’re so prevalent, in fact, that many consider it a “right,” prompting the government to actually provide subsidies to those who can’t afford one on their own.

Embedded in every one of those phones is an RFID chip that can track our every movement via GPS or cell tower triangulation. Moreover, those microphones and cameras that come standard on every phone can be remotely activated by law enforcement surveillance systems, a capability that has existed since the early 2000′s.

But as intrusive as these devices are, they are accepted as the norm by billions of people world wide. Not only that, but no one had to “force” them on us. We are, it seems, the masters of our own enslavement. And we pay top dollar to have the best tracking device money can buy!

Granted, one can simply disconnect from “the grid” by throwing away their cell phone. But, the direction these new monitoring technologies are moving coupled with continued government expansion of surveillance suggests that microchip RFID technology will eventually be non-voluntary.

Michael Snyder of The Truth Wins asks What will you do when you can no longer buy or sell without submitting to biometric identification?

This technology is going to keep spreading, and it is going to become harder and harder to avoid it.

And it is easy to imagine what a tyrannical government could do with this kind of technology. If it wanted to, it could use it to literally track the movements and behavior of everyone.

And one day, this kind of technology will likely be so pervasive that you won’t be able to open a bank account, get a credit card or even buy anything without having either your hand or your face scanned first.

It’s difficult to imagine a populace that will freely submit to such digital bondage. But as has been the case with the degradation of personal privacy and rights in America, be assured it won’t simply become law over night.

First, the technologies will need to be generally accepted by society. It’ll start with real-time consumer based products like Google Glass. The older generations may reject it, but in a couple of years you can bet that tens of millions of kids, teens and younger adults will be roaming the streets while sporting cool shades, interactive web surfing and the capability to record everything around them and upload it to the internet instantly.

Next, as we’re already seeing from early adopters, RFID chips will be voluntarily implanted under our skin for everything from access to high security buildings to grocery store purchases.

Eventually, once the concept is generally accepted by the majority, it will become our new “social security number.”

To gain access to official services, you’ll need to be a verified human. Without verification you won’t even be able to purchase a six pack of beer, let alone get medical care or a driver’s license.

Whether we like it or not this is the future. Every purchase you make and every step you take will be tracked by a tiny 15-digit passive microchip, meaning that the only way to “turn it off” will be to physically remove it from your body.

In essence, we’ll soon live in a world of Always On Monitoring.

Our children and grandchildren – at least most of them – will likely not only submit to implantation, they’ll gladly pay the costs so that they, too, can “interact with society in a meaningful way.”


Proposed US rules leave open Internet fast lanes

Internet fast lanes that seemingly run counter to the concept of “net neutrality” would be allowed under rules proposed by US regulators eager to keep broadband service providers from abusing their power.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday laid out a proposal to make sure Internet service providers don’t discriminate when it comes to data coursing through online pipes.

The rules wouldn’t prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from letting technology titans such as Netflix or Google pay for faster data speeds but would require that competing traffic move at “reasonable” speeds.

The “open Internet notice of proposed rule making” sent from FCC chief Tom Wheeler to the full commission was pounced on by critics as a betrayal of the goal of keeping the Internet “neutral” by preventing some online traffic from getting priority over other content.

“FCC proposed rules create incentives for discrimination,” read a Twitter post by Stacey DePolo, a social media manager at domain name giant GoDaddy. “Fight back. Demand real net neutrality.”

The post linked to an online petition urging Wheeler to scrap the proposed rules in favor of a non-discrimination stance that involves reclassifying broadband providers as telecommunications services subject to FCC authority.

The FCC was adamant that it remains committed to net neutrality and is trying to create rules that can withstand legal scrutiny.

Two prior attempts, the most recent in 2010, by the FCC to hold broadband service providers to standards were stymied by US District Court decisions that such moves were outside the agency’s scope of authority.

Wheeler seized on part of the most recent court decision that suggests the FCC has power to take action if ISPs act in “commercially unreasonable” ways.

The proposed rules “follow the roadmap established by the court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an open Internet,” Wheeler said in a blog post.

“To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted,” the FCC chairman maintained.

The proposal will be considered by the full commission at a meeting in May 15 and, if endorsed, a period for public comment will follow.

 

  • ‘Rules of the road’ –

Ovum telecom regulation analyst Matthew Howett said that pinning down what the FCC means by “commercially reasonable” will be central to assessing the potential impact of the rules.

“The FCC is having to rethink its approach to net neutrality after a January 2014 court ruling struck down some of the rules which required Internet service providers to offer equal access to their networks,” Howett said.

The FCC contends there is a “gap” in oversight of ISPs because the court struck down its efforts to ban blocking or slowing of online data.

Wheeler wants new rules in place by the end of this year.

“What the chairman is doing is moving quickly to re-instate the open Internet goal in a manner that will withstand legal scrutiny,” an FCC spokesman said.

“After ten years of trying, the FCC will finally get rules of the road.”

The FCC maintained that the proposed rules will bar ISP behaviors “harmful to consumers” and allow it to set high standards for what is “commercially reasonable.”

Net neutrality advocates argue that letting Internet firms with deep pockets pay for faster data transmission will put innovative young startups at a disadvantage.

FCC officials speaking on background maintained that enforcing a reasonable standard of broadband performance will allow innovation and competition in online products and services and, by extension, lower prices for consumers.

“The end result is this: no blocking will be the law of the land,” the FCC spokesman said.

“This targets conduct that threatens an open Internet.”

The FCC planned to look into whether some ISP practices are so unreasonable they can be banned, but said it does not intend a flat rule preventing some traffic to be prioritized.

gc/sst


 

read more:

ABOLISH THE ACT OF 1871

 

 

======================

The Bundy Ranch Affair read more:

======================

Popular Webpage Posts tatoott1009.com