After Obama was elected president in 2008, and before Obamacare became the brand meme for affordable health care, he gave the okay for some $50 billion dollars in electronic medical records and law enforcement software.
He claimed it would save us $10 billion in costs to consumer and create a database where records could be obtained instantaneously.
The Obama administration, under the direction of Zbigniew Brzezinski – a chief controller in the cyptocracy, is basically carrying out the plan for social evolution by creating a medical surveillance state.
It also confirmed that his staff, headed by Brzezinski, confidently knew that the medical surveillance apparatus would be part of his proposed health care plan. This was all planned many years prior to him becoming President. There is also a plan to establish an extensive bio metric/DNA database in order to help in law enforcement.
Using DNA to trace people who are suspected of committing a crime has been a major advance in policing. When DNA profiling is used wisely it can help to convict people who have committed serious crimes or exonerate people who are innocent. However, concerns arise when individuals’ tissue samples, computerized DNA profiles and personal data are stored indefinitely on a DNA database. There are concerns that this information could be used in ways that threaten people’s individual privacy and rights and that of their families.
Forensic DNA databases are now well established in many countries in the world. Rules on what data can be collected and stored and how it can be used differ greatly between different countries. As DNA sequencing technology advances and becomes cheaper, there are plans to set up new databases or expand existing databases in many countries.
In some countries, databases that used to contain records only from people convicted of serious crimes are being expanded to include many innocent people who have been arrested but not convicted and people convicted or given police warnings or other sanctions for minor crimes. These people are treated as a ‘risky population’ who may commit future offences. In other countries, a DNA database of the whole population is proposed. Data-sharing, involving the transfer of information across international borders is also on the increase.
Anyone who can access an individual’s forensic DNA profile can use it to track the individual or their relatives. Access to a DNA sample can reveal more detailed information about a person’s health. DNA evidence is not foolproof and mistakes can be made in laboratories or in court. However, there are currently no international
safeguards that would protect people’s privacy and rights and prevent miscarriages of justice.
Using extensive DNA databases is the next phase in the technological terror that has been and integral part of the police state. It also puts us closer to Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision of the bridege to a new technocratic control apparatus.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his famous signature book “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era”:
“It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous control over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date files containing even the most personal details about health and personal behavior of every citizen, in addition to the more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information.”
It is now almost mandatory for the mainstream media to not only report that a suspected killer has committed a crime, but to also give us a rundown of his past medical history.
The media now presents not only the background of a suspected criminal, but what drugs he takes, past mental history, and in some cases medical condition, even if the suspect has not been convicted of anything.
The question we have to ask ourselves is if the suspect has been convicted of a crime , does the public have a right to know his personal medical history? How is it that the media has a right to publish medical details on the nightly news?
It may be that we know too much about high profile people of interest in cases of crime, gun crime, hate crime, or even terrorism. This is all part of the extensive medical surveillance apparatus.
Four years ago a young woman and her 3-year-old daughter were murdered in Columbia, South Carolina. There were no known eyewitnesses to the murder, no security cameras caught a figure coming or going.
Nonetheless, the police released a sketch of a possible suspect. Rather than an artist’s rendering based on witness descriptions, the face was generated by a computer relying solely on DNA found at the scene of the crime.
It may be the first time a suspect’s face has been put before the public in this way, but it will not be the last. Investigators are increasingly able to determine the physical characteristics of crime suspects from the DNA they leave behind, providing what could become a powerful new tool for law enforcement.
Already genetic profilers can determine a suspect’s eye and hair color fairly accurately. It is also possible, or might soon be, to predict skin color, freckling, baldness, hair curliness, tooth shape and age.
Computers may eventually be able to match faces generated from DNA to those in a database of mug shots. Even if it does not immediately find the culprit, the genetic witness, so to speak, can be useful, researchers say.
Mandatory DNA testing is now the law in Kuwait. This law is for every citizen, foreign resident, and visitor.
Violations of this truly dystopian law carry the penalty of a year in prison or a fine of $33,000. Falsifying a DNA sample carries a seven-year prison term. If you think this won’t come to the U.S., you should carefully consider how frighteningly close we already are, and the rather daunting future implications.
The Kuwaiti government made the groundbreaking albeit terrifying decision to require mass DNA collection following the June 26 bombing of a Shia mosque in Kuwait City that killed 25 and injured over 200.
That attack was part one of three the same day—all claimed by ISIS that included a mass shooting at a tourist resort in Tunisia, which left 28 dead and 36 injured, and an explosion at a gas factory near Lyon, France.
Passed in early July at a cost of $400 million, the procedures for DNA testing and collection are not yet known, but the project is expected to be complete no later than September 2016.
Molecular profiling or DNA phenotyping, as it is called, is also raising concerns. Some scientists question the accuracy of the technology, especially its ability to recreate facial images. Others say use of these techniques could exacerbate racial profiling among law enforcement agencies and infringe on privacy.
Some are also worried that this will also aid in what is called pre-determined crime.
DNA, of course, has been used for more than two decades to hunt for suspects or to convict or exonerate people. But until now, that meant matching a suspect’s DNA to that found at the crime scene, or trying to find a match in a government database.
DNA phenotyping is different: an attempt to determine physical traits from genetic material left at the scene when no match is found in the conventional way. Though the science is still evolving, small companies like Parabon NanoLabs, which made the image in the South Carolina case, and Identitas have begun offering DNA phenotyping services to law enforcement agencies.
Of course one of the most well known companies is Illumina. Illumina, the largest manufacturer of DNA sequencers, has just introduced a forensics product that can be used to predict some traits, as well as to perform conventional DNA profiling.
Researchers are closing in on specific physical traits, like eye and hair color. A system called HIrisPlex, which was developed at Erasmus University MC Medical Center in the Netherlands, is about 94 percent accurate in determining if a person has blue or brown eyes, but less so with intermediate colors like green.
HIrisPlex, which analyzes 24 genetic variants, is about 75 percent accurate for hair color.
If you value privacy and aren’t a fan of Big Brother, these technological developments are rather creepy or, more accurately, downright terrifying when you consider that there is no real protection from taking a DNA sample without your consent.
Perhaps there should be a warrant issued before someone uses your DNA?
In just six years, the FBI’s DNA database has more than doubled in size, from 6.7 million profiles in 2009 to nearly 13.8 million as of May 2015 due, in part, to warrantless, suspicion less testing for arrestees. Over 2 million profiles and rapidly counting have been added to that database stemming purely from arrests.
Law enforcement is pushing heavily toward Rapid DNA Analyzers which can complete a profile in 90 minutes or less that can be used by a layperson in the field since they are comparable in size to a laser printer.
Just a prick of your finger, and soon everyone will know everything about you.
While most people believe that a sub dermal chip is the answer to their fears of a so called mark of the beast consider that fact that DNA sequencing and an expanded database fits in well with what the FBI has planned for us.
The FBI announced during a biometrics conference in 2014, there are rather disturbing possible future implications. In order to link its Next Generation Identification (NGI) biometrics database with the CODIS DNA profiles, the FBI is looking to simplify by assigning a universal identification number to every citizen.
Given the context of DNA collection for people who haven’t even been arrested judged constitutional by a high court, the increasing prevalence of Rapid DNA tech, and the assigning of a number to link between the DNA and NGI databases what could possibly go wrong? Is the thought that we could be identified in the not-so-distant future with chilling accuracy in less than an hour and a half by a number sounding like some apocalyptic fulfillment?
It is always said that people that have nothing to hide have nothing to fear in the police state, this is because most Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that only criminals desire privacy and fear getting caught.
If you believe that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about then you are then indicating that you believe that we are all worthy of suspicion until proven otherwise.
If left unchecked we will go way beyond the age of the medical surveillance state and will arrive the postmodern age of molecular and biometric authoritarianism.