Category: Surveillance Society

Added Snoopery?

Government Thugs, Surveillance Society, Two-Minute Hate

I started reading this article in the DM  more for entertainment value than any other reason:

I do not have a TV license as I only watch Netflix and Amazon. However, I’ve heard I will now need to buy a license. Is this true?

I know, I know:  the premise of the question is puzzling to my Murkin Readers, in that the very concept of a “TV license” is unfamiliar not to say abhorrent.  But leaving that aside for the moment, I found my amusement turning into something else altogether as I started reading the answer:

The general rule is that under UK law you need to have a current TV license if you, or anyone within your house, flat or premises, watches live television on any channel or service, record television programs as they are being broadcast live or watch anything on BBC iPlayer.

So when you tune in to watch ‘on demand’ television, such as Netflix, Amazon and other similar streaming services, no TV license is needed.

This is because here you are not watching ‘live’ programs – i.e. shows that are being broadcast when you watch or record them but, instead, choosing from a catalogue of options.

So far. so good (well no, not at all good, but whatever).  Here’s where I started to feel a familiar itch in the old trigger finger:

What you have heard about relates to Netflix, the US streaming giant which has 17.1 million UK subscribers and has launched a new service where it broadcasts ‘live’ events – for example the former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson versus Jake Paul boxing match being broadcast on Friday.

This is therefore ‘live’ television, meaning if you watch this, or any other Netflix live event, as it is broadcast, or even if you record it to watch later, you fall squarely into the territory of needing a TV license.

To clarify, you can continue to watch Netflix without a TV license if you chose not to watch the live events.

Which begs  raises the question:  how EXACTLY does the BBC licensing Stasi know whether you’re watching a movie or a live show?

It seems quite a simple deduction that that the answer is twofold:  either Netflix is sharing the viewing choices of the subscribers with the BBC, or the BBC is able somehow to monitor the channel feed, whether terrestrial or wireless.  Either answer is fucking terrible.

I should point out that the only way the BBC can enforce this ridiculous license fee nonsense is because Brits are largely disarmed.  If some Lizenzinspektor  came to the average Texan’s door and started with the strong-arm bullshit, there’d soon be murders.

And just so we know what this is all about:

The standard TV licence now costs £169.50 per year.  If you are required to have a license but fail to buy one, you risk being fined up to £1,000, plus any legal costs and compensation you may be ordered to pay. 

Let’s hear it for the Surveillance Society.

Big Auto, Big Brother

Drive Time, Surveillance Society, Technology, Two-Minute Hate

Yesterday, I talked about wanting to own a pre-digital car — i.e. one that doesn’t fucking spy on your every move.

I often wonder what car or cars I’d get to replace the Tiguan, and what’s interesting is that I’m having precisely the same feelings that I have with guns and watches: nothing of recent manufacture at all — especially given that they’re all without exception loaded with electronic gizmos I don’t care for, or else gizmos that spy on you and/or could possibly be used to control your driving. In fact, the more I think about it, I’d probably have to go back to pre-1970s cars — fully resto-modded of course — to find a car that has not a single computer chip in its driving operation.

Here’s a business opportunity, because this is America.  (I don’t have the technical skills or capital to follow through on this but I’ll just throw it out there.)  Is it possible to turn your car into a mobile Faraday cage?  And would it be possible to turn the feature on and off?

I know, car companies and / or the godless insurance industry would probably use their lawyers and lobbyists to outlaw this, just as law enforcement tried to prevent speed-radar scanners, but it’s worth a shot.  With a switchable cage, the insurance companies couldn’t exactly deny you coverage or raise your rates if all the data showed was you doing trips to the supermarket once a week.

It’s time for us to fight back against this nonsense, and to borrow an expression:  rage against the machine — the machine, in this case, being Big Brother cars, the cunts who make them and sell your data, the even-bigger cunts who strip-mine your personal data, and and the last category of cunts who use your personal data against you.)

I feel a mega-rant coming on, but instead I’ll just go to the range.

And just to make you feel better, if my car was spying on me it could report said destination to… well, anyone who might be interested in such data.  Makes you think, dunnit?

Quote Of The Day

Government Thugs, Marxists, Surveillance Society

From Insty, referring to this post:

“Let’s be honest, the people running the world are not only corrupt, but spectacularly incompetent.  For their lousy performance alone they should be tarred and feathered;  for their “impudence” in attempting dictatorship they deserve worse.  But it really seems that over the past few years the ruling class of the West has been preparing for war against its owns citizenry.  Again: Why?”

Because, Professor Reynolds, the socialist state has always been better at waging war against its own people than against foreigners.  The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror was not directed at the Germans, Spanish or the Italians, but against the very French citizens the Revolution had purported to liberate.  The Communist Revolution in 1917 Russia ended up slaughtering and imprisoning far more working- and middle-class Russians than had ever been killed under the Romanovs.

And it will be far easier for the West’s ruling class to oppress the populace than t would be to, say, oppress foreigners.  The ubiquitous surveillance cameras are in London, Los Angeles, Paris and Berlin — not in Bangalore, Rio de Janeiro or Manila.  And the coming clampdown on free speech will affect Musk’s TwitterX, Bill Whittle and me and the Readers of this website, not Burmese peasants or Masai cattle herders.

Not only was it untrue that Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia;  there’s a distinct possibility that Oceania had never been at war with Eastasia — the war being simply a propaganda concoction to justify the repression of the inhabitants of Oceania.

So when the lackeys of the ruling class — that would be, say, the police forces of Britain and the FBI here in the US — start muttering darkly about the “hard-Right” or “MAGA-followers” as they prepare for mass arrests and imprisonments, it’s us they’ll be coming for.

As for Glenn’s why? the answer’s simple:  because they can.  Glenn is a thoughtful, intelligent and civilized man, and he simply cannot comprehend the feral nature of those who would rule over us.

They — to a man —  are amoral cocksuckers.  And the sooner we recognize that and start treating them accordingly, the better.

Quiet Skies

Government Thugs, Surveillance Society

Apparently, Tulsi Gabbard is on the dreaded “SSSS” list:

This story began two weeks ago, when the former Hawaii congresswoman returned home after a short trip abroad. In airport after airport, she and her husband Abraham Williams encountered obstacles. First on a flight from Rome to Dallas, then a connecting flight to Austin, and later on different flights for both to cities like Nashville, Orlando, and Atlanta, their boarding passes were marked with the “SSSS” designation, which stands for “Secondary Security Screening Selection.” The “Quad-S” marker is often a sign the traveler has been put on a threat list, and Gabbard and Williams were forced into extensive “random” searches lasting as long as 45 minutes.

“It happened every time I boarded,” says Gabbard. The Iraq war veteran and current Army reservist tends to pack light, but no matter.

“I’ve got a couple of blazers in there, and they’re squeezing every inch of the entire collar, every inch of the sleeves, every inch of the edging of the blazers,” she says. “They’re squeezing or padding down underwear, bras, workout clothes, every inch of every piece of clothing.” Agents unzipped the lining inside the roller board of her suitcase, patting down every inch inside the liner. Gabbard was asked to take every piece of electronics out and turn each on, including her military phone and computer.

I suspect she’s on the SSSS list because of stuff like this:

Not having flown on any airline for many a year, I wouldn’t know if I was (still) on the SSSS list (story here and here) and it doesn’t look like I’ll be doing so anytime soon either.  But should I take to the Friendly  Quiet Skies again, it will be interesting to see if my inclusion has lapsed, so to speak.

I think I’ll pack the 1911 in my checked luggage, just for giggles.

And I wasn’t aware of this little thing.

About That ’65 Mustang…

Drive Time, Surveillance Society

I haven’t actually purchased a Ford product since 2003 (F-150 FX4 so that I could move most of our stuff to a new house and not pay movers to do so).

I sure as hell wouldn’t buy one now, because they’re a bunch of fucking cop snitches:

Ford is trying to patent a way for its cars to report speeding drivers to the police.

A patent application from the automaker titled “Systems and Methods for Detecting Speeding Violations” was published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Jul. 18 2024, and was originally filed by Ford Jan. 12, 2023.

In the application, Ford discusses using cars to monitor each other’s speeds. If one car detects that a nearby vehicle is being driven above the posted limit, it could use onboard cameras to photograph that vehicle. A report containing both speed data and images of the targeted vehicle could then be sent directly to a police car or roadside monitoring units via an Internet connection, according to Ford.

And if that doesn’t set your ass on fire, try this:

Using vehicles for speed surveillance would make cops’ jobs easier, as they wouldn’t have to quickly identify speeding violations and take off in pursuit, Ford notes in the application. It also means some of that work could be delegated to self-driving cars, which could be equipped to detect speeding violations, the automaker adds.

So it’s all-so-conveeenient for everybody, you see.

But wait!  There’s more!

Ford is now selling your driving data to a company called LexisNexis. This company is a New York-based global data broker with a “Risk Solutions” division that caters to the auto insurance industry and has traditionally kept tabs on car accidents and tickets.
However, it turns out that LexisNexis is using your driving habits (acceleration, hard braking, speed and how fast you take corners) and forwarding this information on to insurance companies that then increase your insurance rates.

And if there’s one thing that insurance companies are known for, it’s their reluctance to generate more income  increase rates wherever they can.

If I were of an inclination to buy a car from Ford (and that’s a HUGE “if”), I’d go more for this kind of thing:

…or even better:

And for those of the truck persuasion:

Yeah, they’re old and (maybe) less reliable than the newest Fords… but at least they’re not continually spying on you while you drive them.

Bastards.

Speed Bump

Law and Order, Surveillance Society

…and this one isn’t grammatical.

It turns out that when local law enforcement offered the SecServ their drones to overfly the Trump rally in Butler PA, the SS (perhaps unsurprisingly) turned down the offers, repeatedly.

“According to one whistleblower, the night before the rally, U.S. Secret Service repeatedly denied offers from a local law enforcement partner to utilize drone technology to secure the rally. This means that the technology was both available to USSS and able to be deployed to secure the site. Secret Service said no,” Senator Hawley wrote in a letter Thursday to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. “The whistleblower further alleges that after the shooting took place, USSS changed course and asked the local partner to deploy the drone technology to surveil the site in the aftermath of the attack.”

So far, so good.  Fleeing horse, meet stable door:  standard Gummint cock-up.

Here’s what caused me to choke on my morning G&T, though:

The failure to deploy drone technology is all the more concerning since, according to the whistleblower, the drones USSS was offered had the capability not only to identify active shooters but also to help neutralize them.

Wait, WTF?  Are we to understand that the local Barney Fifes in Fucknuckle PA have drones that can take out targets?  Like what the Ukes are using on Russkis, or the CIA uses on Muzzy terrorists?

Fucking hell.  I thought Meal Team Six was bad news…

Or am I misreading the thing?