Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Biometric and Digital ID in Crisis Zones: Is the Red Cross Paving the Way for a Privacy Nightmare?

Published

3 minute read

From Reclaim The Net

By

The Red Cross (ICRC) is the latest long-established and operating international organization of considerable repute, that has found itself enlisted to, essentially, help the biometrics data-reliant ID happen.

Specifically, the Switzerland-based ICRC seems to have gotten involved in a schemeĀ developed to such an endĀ by Germany’s CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security, and also Switzerland-based Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL).

The scheme is called the Janus system.

While formally and generally working in any region affected by natural or human-created disasters – helping refugees, casualties, the issue of missing or displaced persons – the ICRC is mandated first and foremost by the 1949 Geneva Convention.

But the times have in the meantime clearly changed quite considerably – and now there’s the initiative to “hoover up” ICRC’s many decades of experience, and repute, into a “new reality.”

Such as creating new tools “aimed at verifying the identities of humanitarian aid recipients.”

And once again, the focus is onĀ developing nations. This time – not entirely unlike the stated rationale behind recent UK’s recent mass surveillance effort under the guise of fighting tax money fraud – the focus is supposedly to make sure that those caught up in humanitarian crises areas do not submit “multiple registrations.”

It’s either to make sure humanitarian aid gets to as many people as possible – or, a handy opportunity to present this problem as one without a solution, other than drastic things like biometric data getting introduced into the mix.

There has now been a disturbingly high number of instances of Western-based and/or majority-funded organizations, formal (like the UN), or informal but powerful ones, “testing abroad” the tech that they know would face serious and strong opposition at home.

And that’s in countries and societies where the dangers to privacy and security are either not well-advocated or are simply voided by the everyday bare necessity to survive.

Biometric data harvesting, retention, usage, and (ab)use fall in this category, and as much as civil rights organizations in developed countries are to be praised for the work they do or attempt to do at home, it should be said that the “backdoor experiments” taking place in poorer countries not getting enough spotlight is something these groups definitely need to work on.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance,Ā subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Is free speech over in the UK? Government censorship reaches frightening new levels

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.

The UK’s crackdown on free speech continues, with two online platforms withdrawing over censorship concerns – whilst liberal-critical speakers are banned from entering Britain, and even arrested on arrival.

Following the introduction of laws which could see online platforms fined millions of pounds, free speech social media companyĀ GabĀ and video sharing platformĀ Bitchute have withdrawn their services from UK users.

As Reclaim the Net, a UK-based online freedom campaign group,Ā saidĀ on March 28:

ā€œThe British government has begun aggressively extending its censorship regime beyond its borders, invoking the sweeping powers granted by the Online Safety Act 2023 to demand compliance from foreign-based platforms.ā€

Bitchute withdrew its services from UK users ā€œover online censorship laws,ā€ as the Free Speech UnionĀ reportedĀ on April 10. Gab’sĀ statement, published on its UK domain, said the company was acting to protect British users from being jailed for posting on its platform:

After receiving yet another demand from the UK’s speech police, Ofcom, Gab has made the decision to block the entire United Kingdom from accessing our website.

This latest email from Ofcom ordered us to disclose information about our users and operations. We know where this leads: compelled censorship and British citizens thrown in jail for ā€˜hate speech.’ We refuse to comply with this tyranny.

The UK government claims its laws support ā€œonline safetyā€ – but as Reclaim the NetĀ explains,Ā ā€œcritics argue … the term … is being used as a smokescreen for state-sanctioned thought control.ā€

The future of information in Britain looks bleak, as one UK commentatorĀ said, promising a ā€œTV versionā€ of the internet – sterilized by UK government media watchdog Ofcom:

ā€œUnless the White House really forces Britain to do it, Ofcom will not be abolished, because the mainstream parties approve of it and no party that doesn’t will be allowed anywhere near power.ā€

Millennial WoesĀ concludesĀ that there is likely a ā€œhit listā€ of further online platforms to be taken down in order, beginning with video outlets Odysee and Rumble, the messenger service Telegram, then the free speech publisher Substack – and on to Elon Musk’s X.

ā€œIf allowed to continue in its current mode, Ofcom will take down the platforms it wants to, then tame the others by hook or by crook. The Internet in Britain will be a homogenised, redacted farce – a pathetic ā€˜TV version’ of what people in more civilised countries have.ā€

Cambridge professor arrested

The charge of ā€œstate-sanctioned thought controlā€ is reinforced by the arrest – on Good Friday –-of a Palestinian Christian and Cambridge University professor at London’s Heathrow Airport. The reason for Professor Makram Khoury-Machool’s detention was that he has spoken out against Israel’s war in Gaza, asĀ reportsĀ from the UK said.

 

ā€œKeir Starmer’s long and intensifying war on pro-Palestine, anti-genocide speech through the misuse of the Terrorism Act … has continued to escalate,ā€Ā notedĀ UK outlet Skwawkbox, which covers stories such as this – neglectedĀ by the mainstream press ā€œbecause it doesn’t fit their agenda.ā€

Professor Khoury, whose speech was criminalized under anti-terror laws, had in the past co-founded an anti-extremismĀ instituteĀ in 2016 at Cambridge University.

British left-populist George Galloway responded on X (formerly Twitter), saying the arrest of this ā€œgentle, devout moderate academic fatherā€ suggests that the ā€œgovernment has declared war on its own citizens, that liberty is dead in this land, and that Britain is no longer a safe country.ā€

Galloway’s warning of ā€œIt can happen to you. And it willā€ came a day after reports that a French philosopher noted for his outspoken criticism of mass migration had beenĀ bannedĀ from entering the UK.

French anti-migration speaker banned

Renaud Camus is the author ofĀ The Great Replacement – coining a term now used to describe the liberal-global policy of the replacement of Western populations via mass immigration.

The ā€œgreat replacementā€ is routinely ā€œdebunkedā€ by the ruling elite as a ā€œconspiracy theory.ā€ As Camus once said to Britain’s Matt Goodwin,Ā ā€œHow can it be debunked when it is evident in every street?ā€

 

He was due to speak at a ā€œremigration conferenceā€ in England on April 26. Organized by the nationalist Homeland Party, it is dedicated to the discussion of policies similar to those now being enacted by the Trump administration.

According to theĀ Daily Telegraph, Camus wasĀ deniedĀ entry to the UK by government order.

In an email seen by The Telegraph, the Home Office informed Mr Camus that he had been denied the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) needed to enter Britain.

ā€˜Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conducive to the public good,’ the email read.

The TelegraphĀ reports that Mr Camus, ā€œwho is gay and has advocated for non-violence,ā€ supplied one convincing explanation for his treatment:

[He] told The Telegraph that ā€˜of all the European governments guilty’ of allowing unchecked migration, ā€˜the British government is one of the guiltiest’.

ā€˜No wonder it does not want me to speak,’ Mr Camus added.

The fact the British government is banning speakers who promote policies now being enacted with widespread support in the United States has not only provoked criticism – it may derail UK/U.S. trade negotiations.

Days ago, Vice President JD VanceĀ warnedĀ UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer that Britain will get no deal with the U.S. over tariffs if its ā€œhate speechā€ laws remain in place.

ā€œSir Keir Starmer must embrace Donald Trump’s agenda by repealing hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line, a Washington source has told The Independent.ā€

A ā€œWashington sourceā€ told the UK-basedĀ Independent,Ā ā€œNo free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.ā€

Vance has been a stern critic of British and European moves towards increasing censorship and the suppression of freedom of opinion, describing it in his FebruaryĀ Munich speechĀ as a ā€œthreatā€ to democracy ā€œfrom withinā€ Western Europe – and one which is led by its liberal-globalist governments.

Vance is reportedly ā€œobsessed by the fall of Western civilisation,ā€Ā The Independent’s Washington sourceĀ explained. It is clear that Vance believes that this fall is very much a threat created by the political decisions of governments like Starmer’s.

The use of ā€œhate speechā€ and ā€œanti-terrorismā€ laws in these cases shows how the UK state-sanctioned suppression of speech affects anyone – from the left, right, or from the Christian faith – who criticizes the policies of the government.

These are not fringe extremist views, but those held by increasing numbers of ordinary people in Britain and throughout the Western world. Instead of changing policies which threaten the collapse of Western civilization, the liberal-global governments prefer to make public opposition to their politics a crime.

In the case of the British state, its hardline stance to defend its idea of democracy from free speech is now threatening its economic future. The politics and laws celebrated as the guarantee of safety increasingly resemble a form of extremism which will not tolerate debate.

Continue Reading

Business

ā€˜Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Schwab’s World Economic Forum became a globalist hub for population control, radical climate agenda, and transhuman ideology under his decades-long leadership.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and the face of the NGO’s elitist annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, has resigned as chair of WEF.Ā 

Over the decades, but especially over the past several years, the WEF’s Davos annual symposium has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to the agendas being pushed there by the elites. As the Associated PressĀ noted:Ā 

Widely regarded as a cheerleader for globalization, the WEF’s Davos gathering has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people.Ā 

While WEF itself had no formal power, the annual Davos meeting brought together many of the world’s wealthiest and most influential figures, contributing to Schwab’s personal worth and influence.

Schwab’s resignation on April 20 was announced by the Geneva-based WEF on April 21, but did not indicate why the 88-year-old was resigning. ā€œFollowing my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88thĀ year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,ā€ Schwab said in a brief statement. He gave no indication of what he plans to do next.Ā 

Schwab founded the World Economic Forum – originally the European Management Forum – in 1971, and its initial mission was to assist European business leaders in competing with American business and to learn from U.S. models and innovation. However, the mission soon expanded to the development of a global economic agenda.Ā Ā 

Schwab detailed his own agenda in several books, includingĀ The Fourth Industrial RevolutionĀ (2016), in which he described the rise of a new industrial era in which technologies such artificial intelligence, gene editing, and advanced robotics would blur the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds. Schwab wrote:Ā 

We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society …

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a ā€œquantifiedā€ self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

How? Microchips implanted into humans, for one. Schwab was a tech optimist who appeared to heartily welcome transhumanism; in aĀ 2016 interview with France 24Ā discussing his book, he stated:Ā Ā 

And then you have the microchip, which will be implanted, probably within the next ten years, first to open your car, your home, or to do your passport, your payments, and then it will be in your body to monitor your health.

In 2020, mere months into the pandemic, Schwab publishedĀ COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he detailed his view of the opportunity presented by the growing global crisis. According to Schwab, the crisis was an opportunity for a global reset that included ā€œstakeholder capitalism,ā€ in which corporations could integrate social and environmental goals into their operations, especially working toward ā€œnet-zero emissionsā€ and a massive transition to green energy, and ā€œharnessingā€ the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence and automation.Ā 

Much of Schwab’s personal wealth came from running the World Economic Forum; as chairman, he earned an annual salary of 1 million Swiss francs (approximately $1 million USD), and the WEF was supported financially through membership fees from over 1,000 companies worldwide as well as significant contributions from organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is now serving as interim chairman until his replacement has been selected.Ā 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in theĀ National Post,Ā National Review,Ā First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, theĀ Jewish Independent,Ā theĀ Hamilton Spectator,Ā Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author ofĀ The Culture War,Ā Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion,Ā Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement,Ā Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author ofĀ A Guide to Discussing Assisted SuicideĀ with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Trending

X