How The Internet Of Bodies (IoB) Will Literally Connect You To The Internet

Privacy and security experts have been warning about Internet of Things (IoT) technology for many years and continue to do so (see 1234). Internet of Bodies (IoB) technology falls under the IoT umbrella and it is currently unregulated.

How The Internet Of Bodies (iob) Will Literally Connect You To The Internet

For those who aren’t familiar with what IoT entails, an excellent description has been provided on the Whatis5G.Info website:

The Internet of Things (IoT), as being marketed and sold to the public, is a vision of connecting every “thing” possible to the Internet – all machines, appliances, objects, devices, animalsinsects and even our brains.

In addition, the IoT will include artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR)virtual reality (VR), robotsmicrochipped humans, and augmented humans (humans with some form of technology implanted or integrated into their biology to “enhance” human characteristics or capabilities).

IoT sensors and surveillance cameras will pepper our communities as well. New IoT cyber physical systems will render all objects “smart” – i.e. connected to the Cloud – thus enabling pervasive machine-to-machine (M2M) communications and massive data collection and leaving us open to devastating cyber attacks.

In November, Activist Post reported about a law review article which revealed legal and social issues associated with both IoB and IoT technology.

Additional scary details and pictures were provided in an article published by Truth UnMuted:

The Internet Of Bodies (IoB) And Hacking Your DNA

How Implantable Devices Will Connect Your Body to the Internet

The age of the Internet of Things (IoT), and soon to follow the Internet of Bodies (IoB), is now upon us.

The RAND Corporation, the think tank behind some of the world’s most influential and frightening ideas and technologies, has released a report titled The Internet of Bodies: Opportunities, Risks, and Governance.

You should be wary of any reports issued by the RAND Corporation. Alex Abella, author of Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of American Empire, explains why:

RAND was, and is, the essential establishment organization. Throughout its history, RAND has been at the heart of that interweaving of Pentagon concupiscence and financial rapacity that President Eisenhower aimed to call the military- industrial- legislative complex. RAND has literally reshaped the modern world—and very few know it.

With this understanding, there is much cause for alarm with the issuance of this new report.

What Is The Internet Of Bodies (IoB)?

RAND defines the IoB as “a growing industry of devices that monitor the human body, collect health and other personal information, and transmit that data over the Internet.”

In order to qualify as an IoB device, the technology must:

  • contain software or computing capabilities
  • be able to communicate with an Internet-connected device or network

An IoB device must also satisfy one or both of the following:

  • collect person-generated health or biometric data
  • be able to alter the human body’s function

The technology that Hollywood has presented over the years in dystopian sci-fi fantasies is now a reality.

In the very near future, the technocratic overlords of science, health, finance, and Big Tech desire humanity to go from wearable devices to devices embedded within our bodies.

How IoB Intersects With IoT

IoT devices such as smart meters, smart watches, virtual assistants, and self-driving cars connect directly to the Internet or through a local network.

As IoT devices become more commonplace, experts predict that acceptance of and desire for IoB devices will also increase. The RAND report predicts:

By 2025, there will be more than 41 billion active IoT devices, generating 2.5 quintillion bytes of data daily on environment, transportation, geolocation, diet, exercise, biometrics, social interactions, and everyday human lives. This explosion in IoT devices will result in further popularity of IoB devices.

IoB Products In Use Or Being Developed

Figure 1 from the RAND report shows just how invasive and pervasive IoB technology can become. By the time it is fully unleashed, no part of the human body will escape its interference. They even plan to have our toilets connected to the Internet where they will monitor our waste using BioBot technology to determine what we eat, what drugs we may take, and analyze our genetic material!

Here are just a few examples of the technology currently being developed:

  • Augmented reality contact lenses
  • Brain reading and writing devices
  • Body-implanted sensors
  • Clothing with sensors
  • Implantable microchips (RFID and NFC)
  • Mental and emotional sensors
  • Artificial pancreas
  • Bluetooth connected diaper

Not even babies will be able to escape this nightmare where every bodily function is constantly tracked and monitored. The sad part is that many people will welcome these intrusive technologies because they’re convenient and timesaving. However, exchanging bodily sovereignty for convenience is never a fair transaction. It almost always serves to benefit those who desire more control over our lives.

Through adoption of technological advancement, humans are consenting to allow technocrats to dictate every facet of life. Soon doctors will be able to know if you are taking prescribed medication appropriately, and will have tools to report you if you aren’t. Digital pills will be used to record your medical compliance as the RAND report signals – Read full article

As noted in the article, IoB technology requires wireless (WiFi) radiation, 5G and other Electromagnetic Fields (aka “Electrosmog”) in order to perform.  All of these sources are biologically harmful. So there’s that too.

US Patent Confirms Human Nervous System Manipulated By Watching TV

It’s hard to find any information at all on a one “Hendricus G. Loos,” despite the fact that he’s filed multiple patent applications, with success, for apparatuses that deal with the manipulation of the human nervous system via a computer screen or a television monitor.

In the abstract, he explains the following,

“Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance.

“Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation.Nervous System Manipulation Patent

US Patent 6506148 B2

“It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set.

“For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal.

“The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity.”

that even a very weak pulse can have adverse affects on the human nervous system.

He then goes on to describe that pulse variability and strength can be controlled through software, and explains how, with regards to a computer monitor, DVDs, video tapes and more, and also how it can be remotely controlled from another location.

Perhaps the most concerning part is this,

“Certain monitors can emit electromagnetic field pulses that excite a sensory resonance in a nearby subject, through image pulses that are so weak as to be subliminal.

“This is unfortunate since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, whereby people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else’s purposes.

“Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online, or while watching TV, a video, or a DVD.”

The application is full of cited examples that the “nervous system of a subject can be manipulated through electromagnetic field pulses emitted by a nearby CRT or LCD monitor which displays images with pulsed intensity.”

Our nervous system basically controls everything in our body, including the brain.

It’s a network of nerves and cells that carry messages to and from the brain and spinal cord to various parts of the body, and it’s no secret that the United States government, among others, have a long history of experimenting on human beings for mind control purposes.

Also read: TV Is Mind Control Through Physiological And Psychological Manipulation

Could Television Be A Mind-Control Tactic?

It would explain why so many people believe stories and explanations of events presented to them by mainstream media, instantaneously, without even questioning.

In some cases, we are made to idolize what we see on T.V, like celebrities, and imitate behaviour and wants.

Sometimes, a perspective that’s backed by evidence, which completely counters the story and information we receive from mainstream media, is thrown into the “conspiracy realm.”

This is dangerous, have we reached a point where our televisions are doing the thinking for us? Could they be using pulse techniques described above to influence our thoughts, behaviours and perceptions?

Given what we know about our governments and the unethical actions they’ve taken throughout history, it’s really not out of the question.

There is a reason why airplanes and hospitals ban the use of cell phones, it’s because their electromagnetic transmissions interfere with critical electrical devices.

The brain is no different, it’s a bioelectric organ that’s extremely complex and generates electric fields.

Scientists can actually control brain function with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a technique that uses powerful pulses of electromagnetic radiation beamed into a person’s brain to jam or excite particular brain circuits.

This is the same type of thing described in the patent, so to what extent are our computer monitors and television screens doing this?

This is why, for example, when somebody turns on their Sony Playstation, the screen warns them to read the important health information before playing.

Research has also shown that simple cell phone transmissions can affect a person’s brainwaves quite significantly, which in turn leads to effects on their behaviour as well.

“Electromagnetic radiation can have an effect on mental behaviour when transmitting at the proper frequency.” – James Horne , from the Loughborough University Sleep Research Centre (source)

Not only this, but hundreds of scientists have come together, and are currently creating awareness on and petitioning the United Nations about the health effects of electromagnetic radiation.

They’ve been linked to cancer, and have been shown to manipulate our DNA. You can read more about that here.

The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment.

“The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”

This information is a separate effect on the body from mind control, but it’s still important to mention and bring light to.

Not only are our electronic devices monitoring, watching, and recording everything we do, they may also be influencing our behaviour, perceptions, thoughts and feelings on a large-scale as well, but who really knows if “the powers that be” are using these devices for mind control, in the same way they use them for surveillance.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not hard to see how corporations use television to influence our behaviour and perceptions, but perhaps they, and other authorities, are changing things around, as mentioned above, and manipulating our nervous systems purposefully for their own personal gain, and knowingly do so.

Chamath Palihapitiya, the vice-president for user growth at Facebook prior to leaving the company in 2011, said,

“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops that we created are destroying how society works…. No civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth.” So, we are seeing a similar type of thing there as well.”

When it comes to mind control, project MK ultra was the CIA’s baby. It’s commonly believed that it was only LSD that was used on human test subjects, but that was just one program.

As the US Supreme Court brought to light in 1985, MK ultra consisted of 162 different secret projects that were indirectly financed by the CIA, and contracted out to several universities, research foundations and similar institutions.”

The majority of the MK Ultra records were actually destroyed, and have never been seen.

Perhaps television programming was a part of the MK Ultra program?

CNN In 1985: ‘EMF Weapons Being Used For Mind Control’ (EMFs Include 5G, Bluetooth, Cell Phone Radiation, WiFi)

Concluding Comments

It’s hard to fathom the idea that we could be manipulated and used so much, for the purposes of profit, control, and other agendas, but it’s a reality we have to face.

There are limitless examples of this throughout history all the way up to the modern-day, and all aspects of human life seem to be controlled by a select group of very few people from health, to finance, education, entertainment, big food and more.

We’ve become tools for their use, and our thoughts, behaviours, and perceptions, for the most part, seem to be the same.

If they’re a little different, or don’t really fit the frame, one can instantly be labelled, or become a ‘social outcast.’

There is no doubt in my mind that our Television, and other electronic devices has detrimental health effects, and that they do/can effect our nervous system in several different ways.

The science on this is clear, but what is not so clear is the idea that there are others using these techniques, knowingly, to control our minds.

Based on all of my research into mind control ,and the actions our governments have taken and to what extent they’ve taken them to, I would be surprised if Television was not apart of the MK ultra program.

All and all, it’s another great reason to spend less time in-front of your screen, and more time with a book or spending time outside, or with family and friends.

If there is one thing that’s for sure, our screens are detrimental to our health in several different ways.

Due to the pressure of mass censorship, we now have our own censorship-free, and ad-free on demand streaming network!

It is the world’s first and only conscious media network streaming mind-expanding interviews, news broadcasts, and conscious shows.

‘Social Credit’ May Come to America

It no longer seems paranoid to worry about surveillance and facial recognition.

A protester covers surveillance cameras with paint in Hong Kong, July 1.

Hong Kong protesters have been tearing down surveillance cameras, and it’s easy to see why. Mainland China’s “social credit” system is the most extensive program of government surveillance the world has ever seen—one that should caution not only Hong Kong but also America and the West against further intrusions on privacy.

By one estimate 10% of East Germans were Stasi spies. Until now, that was likely the deepest network of government surveillance ever. It’s nothing compared with what’s happening in China. By next year there will be 600 million surveillance cameras in China, roughly one camera for every two citizens. The cameras feed government databases in real time and, with the assistance of sophisticated facial-recognition software, Beijing eventually expects to be able to identify everyone, everywhere within three seconds of anything happening.

That may deter crime, but it will also enable the government to monitor people it thinks undesirable. It will nip any democracy movement in the bud and permit the government to track Falun Gong members and dissident Christians. That’s where the social-credit system kicks in.

The system ranks Chinese citizens according to what the government regards as good and bad behavior. Bad behavior includes reckless driving, buying too many videogames, and putting your trash in the wrong bin. It also includes hanging out with the wrong people and criticizing the Communist Party.

The sanctions to discourage bad behavior show how deep the techniques of control can be in a modern totalitarian state. People with low social-credit scores are publicly shamed. Their internet speeds are reduced; they’re denied good jobs and banned from air or train travel. Their children are kept out of prestigious schools, and even their pets can be taken from them. The ultimate goal is to create a wholly docile and submissive citizenry.

French philosopher Michel Foucault thought that Western societies did the same thing, in their way. In “Discipline and Punish” (1975), he argued that through their schools, factories and the military, free-market societies turn their citizens into passive and unquestioning automatons and thereby build a metaphorical “panopticon.” The reference was to British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s proposal for a circular prison in which each cell would face the guard at the very center, so that he could see every inmate at a glance. The prisoners would know they could be watched at any time—and so would the guard.

The metaphor of Western society as a panopticon caught on among radical leftists who needed an explanation for why Americans rejected socialism. As fanciful as that was, it did acknowledge that pervasive social control would be oppressive. But does the left still think so, now that it controls important institutions including higher education and much of the media and big business? It would appear not, given its recent tactics—setting internet mobs on high-school students, doxxing anonymous conservatives, publishing the names and addresses of donors to disfavored candidates and causes, harassing public officials in restaurants and at home.

When you see your opponents as evil, such practices begin to look like fair game. Progressives today seem to lack the instinct to question their own judgment and have shed any skepticism about ideology. Given the left’s vicious self-righteousness, on display daily in the media, the question becomes whether it will accept any limits in its quest to impose its views on everyone—especially if it gains control of the government’s coercive interests.

The left would have to contend with the self-corrective instincts of Americans and our love of liberty, as well as the Constitution and the courts. Still, the actions of the Obama-era Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation bode ill. Thus it’s time to start thinking about the need to protect Americans’ privacy.

The District of Columbia has 540 surveillance cameras on its street corners to catch drivers who run red lights. The U.K. has at least four million such cameras, 500,000 in London alone. I used to think libertarians were paranoid to worry about this. Now I’m not so sure.

IT CAN HAPPEN HERE

Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.

Here are some of the elements of America’s growing social credit system.

INSURANCE COMPANIES

The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts. That Instagram pic showing you teasing a grizzly bear at Yellowstone with a martini in one hand, a bucket of cheese fries in the other, and a cigarette in your mouth, could cost you. On the other hand, a Facebook post showing you doing yoga might save you money. (Insurance companies have to demonstrate that social media evidence points to risk, and not be based on discrimination of any kind—they can’t use social posts to alter premiums based on race or disability, for example.)

The use of social media is an extension of the lifestyle questions typically asked when applying for life insurance, such as questions about whether you engage in rock climbing or other adventure sports. Saying “no,” but then posting pictures of yourself free-soloing El Capitan, could count as a “yes.”

PATRONSCAN

A company called PatronScan sells three products—kiosk, desktop, and handheld systems—designed to help bar and restaurant owners manage customers. PatronScan is a subsidiary of the Canadian software company Servall Biometrics, and its products are now on sale in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)

Judgment about what kind of behavior qualifies for inclusion on a PatronScan list is up to the bar owners and managers. Individual bar owners can ignore the ban, if they like. Data on non-offending customers is deleted in 90 days or less. Also: PatronScan enables bars to keep a “private” list that is not shared with other bars, but on which bad customers can be kept for up to five years.

PatronScan does have an “appeals” process, but it’s up to the company to grant or deny those appeals.

UBER AND AIRBNB

Thanks to the sharing economy, the options for travel have been extended far beyond taxis and hotels. Uber and Airbnb are leaders in providing transportation and accommodation for travelers. But there are many similar ride-sharing and peer-to-peer accommodations companies providing similar services.

Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options.

Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.” The ban can be based on something the host privately tells Airbnb about something they believe you did while staying at their property. Airbnb’s competitors have similar policies.

It’s now easy to get banned by Uber, too. Whenever you get out of the car after an Uber ride, the app invites you to rate the driver. What many passengers don’t know is that the driver now also gets an invitation to rate you. Under a new policy announced in May: If your average rating is “significantly below average,” Uber will ban you from the service.

WHATSAPP

You can be banned from communications apps, too. For example, you can be banned on WhatsApp if too many other users block you. You can also get banned for sending spam, threatening messages, trying to hack or reverse-engineer the WhatsApp app, or using the service with an unauthorized app.

WhatsApp is small potatoes in the United States. But in much of the world, it’s the main form of electronic communication. Not being allowed to use WhatsApp in some countries is as punishing as not being allowed to use the telephone system in America.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SOCIAL CREDIT, ANYWAY?

Nobody likes antisocial, violent, rude, unhealthy, reckless, selfish, or deadbeat behavior. What’s wrong with using new technology to encourage everyone to behave?

The most disturbing attribute of a social credit system is not that it’s invasive, but that it’s extralegal. Crimes are punished outside the legal system, which means no presumption of innocence, no legal representation, no judge, no jury, and often no appeal. In other words, it’s an alternative legal system where the accused have fewer rights.

Social credit systems are an end-run around the pesky complications of the legal system. Unlike China’s government policy, the social credit system emerging in the U.S. is enforced by private companies. If the public objects to how these laws are enforced, it can’t elect new rule-makers.

An increasing number of societal “privileges” related to transportation, accommodations, communications, and the rates we pay for services (like insurance) are either controlled by technology companies or affected by how we use technology services. And Silicon Valley’s rules for being allowed to use their services are getting stricter.

If current trends hold, it’s possible that in the future a majority of misdemeanors and even some felonies will be punished not by Washington, D.C., but by Silicon Valley. It’s a slippery slope away from democracy and toward corporatocracy.

In other words, in the future, law enforcement may be determined less by the Constitution and legal code, and more by end-user license agreements.

Kids Preferred Books to Screens So School Bans iPads and Brings Back Textbooks

Kids Preferred Books to Screens So School Bans iPads and Brings Back Textbooks

More research and more experts warn that excessive screen use isn’t good for kids AND for a variety of reasons (see 1, 2, 3, 4).

Silicon Valley parents (aka tech inventors) have been sending their kids to private low-tech schools for many years and limiting their use of tech in their homes.  More recently it’s been reported they’ve been going to desperate extremes to shield their kids from screens – like spying on their nannies.

Unfortunately, many public schools have become “high tech” – and that, of course, requires excessive amounts of screen time.  Thanks to Healthy Food House for reporting about one private school in Australia that traded in their tech so students could learn happily ever after:

Kids Preferred Books to Screens So School Bans iPads and Brings Back Textbooks

Nowadays, technology has become one of the crucial aspects of living, and youngsters are becoming growingly dependent on their high-tech devices. This made numerous schools incorporate them in the classroom, and numerous parents believe they are essential for modern education.

However, numerous scientists and doctors warn about their excessive use and the effects of the digital era.

As a result, Reddam House Private School, located in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, has officially banned the use of iPads and gone back to regular textbooks. The school claims that it was done due to the feedback they received from students, who prefer pages to screens.

The school has used these devices for the past five years, but found that they do not improve the technology skills of the students but hindered their learning instead.

According to principal Dave Pitcairn, students were distracted by messages and other alerts and maintained that they learned better when searching through a textbook, as they found it easier to research and take notes.

He explained that they had not entirely gone away from hard copy, as they kept year 11 and 12 hard copy. When students got to year 11 and made the comparison between digital and hard copy, they preferred the hard copy. Namely, they found it much easier to navigate through the textbook with the hard copy.

He maintains that students learn better the more faculties they use, the more senses they use in research and reading and making notes.

IPads were only introduced in 2010 and adopted into classrooms in the subsequent years, and the conflicting research between iPads and textbooks reveals that there are pros and cons to everything.

Students were also shown to engage better with a physical textbook and to comprehend better when learning from actual printed textbooks.

We should not forget the effects of the blue light emitted by these devices, which might lead to permanent eye damage, and their use has been linked to mental health issues and delayed language development, obesity, sleeping and attention problems, and more.

Some even note that the use of digital devices could cause addiction, depression, chronic stress, and irritability.

Screen Time Colorado Introduction – YouTube

https://youtu.be/QGZV-FZ1ggY