Big Brother Britain
Liberius
Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
================================
August 01, 1999
By Rachel Sylvester
The Independent on Sunday
http://www.independent.co.uk/
PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
considered by Downing Street. The proposal was immediately
condemned by civil libertarians last night as a further step
towards "big brother Britain."
A report sent to Tony Blair by the inter-departmental ministerial
group on fraud, recommends drastic changes to the law to give
Whitehall departments sweeping new powers to compare files and
obtain private information.
Ministers want Government officials to be able to cross check
data given to different departments and local authorities so they
can identify fraudulent benefits claims and tax returns. They are
also discussing giving inspectors access to individuals' bank and
building society accounts so they can catch people who lie about
how much money they have.
The proposals, which would almost certainly involve rewriting the
Data Protection Act, will infuriate Labour left-wingers and civil
liberties campaigners who will see them as an unacceptable
invasion of privacy. The Government is already under fire for
watering down its commitment to release its own documents to the
public through the Freedom of Information Act.
The plans are also being fiercely resisted by the Inland Revenue
which fears that they will encourage people to fiddle their tax
returns to prevent details of their income being used against
them by other Government departments.
However, ministers at the Department for Social Security and the
Treasury are determined to "think the unthinkable" in their
battle to combat fraud, which is costing the taxpayer billions of
pounds a year. "The exchange of information poses no threat to
the law abiding citizen," one senior Government source said.
Legislation introduced by the last Conservative Government in
1997 allows some cross-checking between the Department for Social
Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in certain
narrowly-defined cases. But there are very strict criteria about
the conditions in which facts can be passed on and information
can only be released if there is a suspicion of fraud.
Ministers want to change the law to allow much more proactive
investigations and extend data-matching across Whitehall. For
example, they want to give the Benefits Agency access to
claimants' medical records, so it can identify people wrongly
claiming incapacity benefit, and to their tax files so it can go
on "fishing expeditions" to identify those lying about their
income.
More controversially still, the Government is considering
extending the principle to the private sector by giving the
Department for Social Security access to bank and building
society accounts. Although ministers admit this would be
politically sensitive, they believe there is a strong case for
pressing ahead.
The target would be income support claimants who become
ineligible for the benefit if they have more than £8,000. "We
depend on their honesty to declare this and some are not honest,"
one DSS source said.
The Inland Revenue could also use the access to financial details
to clamp down on black market workers who fail to declare their
earnings in full.
The aim of the drive to extend data matching is to effectively
create a single Government "file" for each person by
cross-checking claims made to different departments.
There is a growing problem of people defrauding the system by
creating multiple identities and claiming benefits under
different names. "The idea is that we should be able to look at
people's applications to different arms of Government to see if
they add up and are consistent," one ministerial source said.
"That could apply to anything from medical records to
applications for fishing licenses."
Civil liberties campaigners reacted furiously to the proposals
last night. John Wadham, director of Liberty, said they were a
"fundamental breach of the right to privacy". "Information that
we are all forced to provide belongs not to the Government but to
us and they have no right to pass it on," he said.
(c) Copyright. Published by Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd
What a cunning way to destroy free speech
=================================
August 01, 1999
By Melanie Phillips
The Sunday Times
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/
As if the many hazards and irritations of travelling on the
London Underground aren't enough, unwary passengers may find
themselves suddenly harangued at ear-splitting volume by a man
who goes from carriage to carriage preaching the gospel. The
long-suffering passengers wince, giggle, look embarrassed, moan
to their neighbours or bury themselves even deeper in their
newspapers.
If a police officer, though, were suddenly to march into the
carriage, arrest the preacher and haul him off to the local
magistrates, one likes to think his fellow Britons would be
shaken out of their torpor into disbelieving rage. After all,
this country is the cradle of free speech. Isn't it?
Well, maybe not any more. Alison Redmond-Bate was convicted last
year of obstructing a police officer who stopped her preaching
with her mother and another woman on the steps of Wakefield
Cathedral. A crowd of more than a hundred had gathered and
shouted "Bloody lock them up" and "Shut up" at the women. This
wasn't the first time the preachers, members of an outspoken
evangelical sect, had fallen foul of the law. Redmond-Bate and
her father had been found guilty of wilful obstruction in 1997
after allegedly "unsettling" a crowd in York by warning them not
to turn their backs on God.
It probably does get up a lot of people's noses to be told
they're all sinners and will burn in hell. But anyone who doesn't
like it can walk away. As Lord Justice Sedley observed when he
allowed Redmond-Bate's appeal against her conviction last week,
the idea that people would become violent from exposure to an
in-your-face version of Thought for the Day was absurd. A bit of
shouting from a crowd never harmed anybody.
As for the suggestion that a speaker was innocent of a breach of
the peace only as long as what she was saying was inoffensive,
this was so dangerously wrong-headed that it inspired the judge
to a ringing declaration. Free speech, he said, had to include
"the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical,
the unwelcome and the provocative", provided it didn't provoke
violence.
Alas, Lord Justice Sedley is a voice from an already receding
past. This is no longer a country that believes in robust free
speech. It is far too terrified to give offence, the truly modern
heresy. People who are foolish enough to assume that opinion is
free may find themselves branded an enemy of the people.
George Staunton, a 78-year-old war veteran, thought that while he
was putting up posters for the UK Independence party on a
derelict wall, he would embellish their message by writing on the
wall "Don't forget the 1945 war" and "Free speech for England".
Unfortunately, there was no free speech for Staunton as he was
arrested and charged with racially aggravated criminal damage.
Last week, common sense finally penetrated the fog of the legal
system and the case against him was dropped; but he is
understandably still very upset.
Damage is one thing; being a racist is another. As his solicitor,
a civil liberties lawyer on Merseyside who knows a racist act
when he sees one, pointed out, these remarks weren't racist at
all. The police, he said, had been grossly irresponsible.
In fact, the attitude of the Merseyside police was ridiculous
beyond belief. They boasted of having launched a "dramatic,
painstaking, dawn-till-dusk surveillance operation" against
racist graffiti, whose prize catch was one 78-year-old male whose
crime was to believe that Britain should be independent of
Europe. This was the Keystone Cops meet Big Brother after a
course of racial awareness training. If this really is the face
of the new racially sensitive, post-Stephen Lawrence police
service, then heaven help the black community.
Of course, the Lawrence inquiry itself went down this same road
when it recommended that it should be a crime to utter racist
language in private. The fact that a tribunal of inquiry headed
by a judge could have come up with a proposal of such
totalitarian implications shows how dismayingly far we have
already travelled. For although this was ruled out by ministers,
who could hardly have done otherwise given the barminess of the
proposal, the government has instituted crimes of racially
motivated violence and racially aggravated damage. It has, in
effect, proscribed certain attitudes of mind.
It did so because it wanted to give a signal to black people that
it was serious about tackling the racism that undeniably exists.
Yet a perfectly good law designed to prevent the consequences of
racial hatred is rarely used.
Strangely, the law officers are reluctant to charge people with
incitement to racial hatred, even though they may be distributing
material that is not just offensive but dangerously inflammatory
and intended to provoke real violence. Instead, the government
apparently prefers people to be prosecuted for hurting others'
feelings or for having the wrong opinion. This is likely to
rebound in unexpected ways since everyone is capable of being
offended.
Last week, there was fury in the black community after a black
man was convicted of calling police officers "white trash".
Andrew Wilson was fined £50 by Ipswich magistrates after police
officers started checking why he was sitting in the street on a
television set, which he had been moving for a friend. Mr Wilson
shouted: "You white boys, you arrest black people for anything.
You're white trash, you're only doing this because I'm a nigger.
Leave me alone, you f****** white trash, leave my black ass
alone."
Hurling insults like this is not admirable, but since when did it
make anyone a criminal? Ever since the government passed a law
against "racially aggravated harassment".
The irony, of course, is rich. Here was a law passed to appease
black people who think white society displays prejudice against
them, being used against a black person for thinking that white
police officers were displaying prejudice against him.
This was extremely oppressive, but not for the reasons the black
community is giving. They are outraged that any black person
should be convicted of a racial offence, with the implication
that only white people can be racist, a distorted view that
merely illustrates the dismaying level of bitterness and sense of
siege among black people.
Passing laws to outlaw offensive thought is nevertheless the
wrong way to tackle the alienation of black people, which has
many justifiable causes. Wilson should never have been convicted
for name-calling. Yet why was it worse for Wilson to have called
the police "white trash" than simply "trash"?
Outlawing "hate speech" is an American phenomenon that has crept
up on us unawares. It derives from the overriding injunction not
to hurt anyone's feelings. This sentimental viewpoint is
profoundly intolerant and illiberal. Freedom of speech is often
difficult to take. People may say or write things with which we
might vehemently disagree, or which we may find offensive.
Tolerance, though, is all about allowing things to be said or
done that we believe to be wrong - provided they don't cause
harm. Freedom only lives if we disapprove of offensiveness, but
defend it to the death.
Copyright 1999 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Straw's DNA plans 'are deeply flawed'
=============================
Police would be allowed to take
on-the-spot fingerprints in street
Julia Hartley-Brewer
Saturday July 31, 1999
The Guardian
http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/
Proposals by the home secretary, Jack Straw, to allow an increase
in police use of DNA and fingerprint evidence were branded as
"deeply flawed" by civil liberties groups yesterday.
Under the proposed new laws, the police would be allowed to keep
thousands of DNA samples given by innocent people to compare with
potential matches found at crime scenes. Officers would also be
given the go-ahead to use electronic scanners to gather
on-the-spot fingerprints from suspects in the street rather than
relying on ink pads and paper at police stations .
The proposals, which went out to consultation yesterday, came
under fire from civil rights group Liberty. The group's director
John Wadham said there had been a gradual erosion of the rights
of suspects over recent years, with no corresponding drop in
crime, and warned: "The proposals to allow police officers to
take fingerprints on the streets will lead to more innocent
people being subject to unnecessary and intrusive harassment. In
practice this is likely to have a disproportionate effect on
black people.
"The proposal to allow the police to keep the details of DNA
profiling of volunteers is deeply flawed. It may even backfire by
leading to fewer people co-operating with the police."
Home office minister Paul Boateng acknowledged that wider use of
DNA could raise civil rights issues, but added: "I don't see the
development of hand-held technology as being in any sense an
encroachment on civil liberties."
Mr Straw said changes were needed to bring the law up-to-date
with the latest developments in technology and that individual
rights would be safeguarded, with police still required to arrest
a suspect before taking their fingerprints.
The proposals would eventually pave the way for the use of
hand-held scanners, called Live-ID units, linked to a database
capable of comparing more than 1m fingerprints a second, enabling
police officers on the street to make an instant identification
of arrested suspects. The Livescan units are already being
piloted in some police stations and have led to the
identification of more than 5,000 suspects.
The planned changes would allow the police to keep DNA profiles
given by volunteers during mass screenings after a major
investigation. At present these samples must be destroyed if the
individual is ruled out of the investigation.
The proposed legal changes would also place the use of footprints
as evidence on the same basis as fingerprints and would allow the
police to use DNA profiles and fingerprints gathered in England
and Wales to be checked against records held by foreign police
forces and other bodies such as the ministry of defence, armed
forces or Interpol.
Mr Straw said: "Breakthroughs in DNA technology mean that
offenders can be matched to scenes of crime through microscopic
samples of no more than two or three human cells - sometimes
years after the event. These advances have the potential to help
the police clear up more crimes, free police time and speed
communications."
He said DNA samples would only be stored with the donor's
consent, and would be kept on a separate database to the National
DNA Database which contains samples from 600,000 convicted
offenders.
However, Liberty claimed that volunteers might feel intimidated
into agreeing to allow their profiles to be stored, fearing that
a refusal would place them under suspicion.
The home office proposals were welcomed by the police
superintendents' association of England and Wales, whose
president, Chief Supt Peter Gammon, said: "Not only is this
common sense, but also sound business sense if police resources
are to be used more effectively to combat crime."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 1999
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '07:16:28' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
1999', Liberius <li...@cyprian.uunet.cy> writes:
>
>Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
>================================
>
>August 01, 1999
>By Rachel Sylvester
>The Independent on Sunday
>http://www.independent.co.uk/
>
>
>PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
>individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
>part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
>considered by Downing Street. The proposal was immediately
>condemned by civil libertarians last night as a further step
>towards "big brother Britain."
Thanks for this Liberius (also for all the other press reports that you
post to the group! :-) )
The facility for ID-checking people in 'real time', on the street, via
new fingerprint technology, seems a likely one in the short term. It's
hard to fake fingerprints.
Soon they will take DNA samples at birth - I imagine this has already
started in some hospitals, although doubtless under the usual cover,
'medical research' or something like that.
It is very important here, for those who want to keep in mind, and
criticise, the bigger picture, to focus on the 'telos', and at least the
place where we are likely to be in say 10 years time. We are talking
about ***the State and big corporations being able to identify
practically everybody, and locate practically everybody, at all
times.*** Some of this technology has been tested with smaller
population samples: dogs, birds, mobile phone users, van drivers for
utility companies, etc. Increasingly sophisticated artificial
intelligence will be used to pick out who is in an unpermitted place at
an unpermitted time. We are probably talking mass microchip implantation
by say 2010.
Civil libertarianism, as an ideology of 'to each his/her own business',
will largely be irrelevant. It has always largely been irrelevant in all
important struggles. Opposition to the stated tendency that is based on
a conscious understanding of what the State is (the instrument of the
ruling class), and what hierarchical/spectacular/cultural/political
pseudo-opposition is (a fraction of capital, but also a form of ideology
associated with the intensification of labour under advanced capitalism)
will increasingly be a matter of people getting together in twos and
threes. To some extent it is already.
It will be great for the rulers of course to build up religious
nutcasery as a main tendency within the 'opposition'. It is no
coincidence that '666' is included on all barcodes. It beggars belief
that this was allowed to get through without any of the decision-makers
noticing - it was undoubtedly deliberate. Already a lot of what will
soon be seen as primitive mindcontrol experimentation is being
deliberately mixed up, by the authorities themselves, with UFO
nutcasery.
One must forever fight for ground to stand on, to posit a sane and
thoroughgoing critique of what is really going on, in this period of
prehistory.
(However, it must be added that 'Refuse the Mark of the Beast' is
probably less confusionist and keep-the-lids-on-things as an
oppositional slogan than the one-time slogan of much of the British far
left, 'Demand that the TUC [*] call a general strike' :-). We damn well
should refuse the mark of the capitalist beast, in many ways!! Capital
*is* an inhuman beast, devouring the spirit of human beings...)
(*) TUC: Trades Union Congress - the main British trade union
federation, leadership always pro-American, and until a few years ago
close to one of the political-party organisations, namely the Labour
Party (which to most intents and purposes no longer exists).
--
banana
SFD
Liberius wrote:
> Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
> ================================
>
> August 01, 1999
> By Rachel Sylvester
> The Independent on Sunday
> http://www.independent.co.uk/
>
> PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
> individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
> part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
> considered by Downing Street. The proposal was immediately
> condemned by civil libertarians last night as a further step
> towards "big brother Britain."
>
~~ long snip ~~
It's all very well them floating these sort of stories but let's just
look at the track record ...
(snipped from
http://cnnfntech.newsreal.com/story/19990728/11/18/5128123_st.html )
== begin quoted text ==
THESE ARE some of the recent computer fiascos:
The Student Loans Company:. System to calculate student payments
wrongly set up in 1990. Public Accounts Committee said consultants
Price
Waterhouse got the job in haste. Desperately late paying students'
grants.
Cost: pounds 9.9m to set up, with pounds 1m excess, and pounds 11m in
running costs.
The Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Contractor is Siemens.
Backlog in asylum pleas blamed on new computers.
Cost: Siemens fined pounds 4.5m on pounds 100m contract.
"Red Boxes": Replacing physical ones for ministers with laptop
computers.
Idea dropped after the system proved unwieldy.
Cost: Tens of thousands of pounds.
The National Air Traffic Services: New control centre at Swanwick in
Hampshire. Six years late two more to go, again computer problems.
Installer Lockheed Martin.
Cost: pounds 623m, including pounds 300m overspend.
The National Insurance Recording System: Launched in July 1998 to
"streamline" benefits, but 17 months late. Suffered "massive breakdown"
in
September 1998 leading to the pounds 150m system paying out money
without ensuring claimants were entitled.
Cost: Up to pounds 10m in faulty payments which legally could not be
recovered.
The Passport Office: pounds 230m contract awarded to Siemens to use
digital scanning for increased security and reduced application time.
Waits
doubled, then tripled.
Cost: Enormous lost time, frayed tempers, and reputations. Siemens
penalised just pounds 126,000 (in payments withheld per passport).
CRIS: Criminal Information System, developed for the Metropolitan
Police
by EDS. Planned in 1983 and delivered four years late in 1996.
Cost: pounds 20m, about pounds 3m over plan.
Trawlerman: A Ministry of Defence (MoD) system to handle classified
information. Approved in 1988 but not delivered until 1993 (two years
late)
and not ready until 1995, when it was immediately scrapped.
Cost: pounds 40m.
MoD Profs: An office system again for the MoD. The terminals became the
victim of hyper-inflation, effectively costing pounds 38,000 each, when
their
equivalent could be bought in the high street for pounds 1,000.
Cost: pounds 380m, pounds 130m over budget.
The Operational Strategy: A project to computerise entirely the
Department
of Social Security - described as "the biggest and most complex
computerisation programme in Europe". Completed in 1988, and eventually
a success - but at a price.
Cost: pounds 2.6bn, compared to its planned estimate of just pounds
713m.
(Copyright 1999 Newspaper Publishing PLC)
== end quoted text ==
If the whole shambling edifice of Government computing survives Year
2000, we'll doubtless see what they come up with for this floated
scheme; and then we can rest safe and secure in the knowledge that it's
highly unlikely that it will ever work as originally intended, if indeed
it ever sees the light of day at all. It is comforting at least to know
that so much careful consideration is devoted to wasting what we pay in
taxes; it would be worse than galling to think that they wasted it
thoughtlessly!!
Mike Smith
Liberius wrote in message ...
>
>Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
>================================
>
>August 01, 1999
>By Rachel Sylvester
>The Independent on Sunday
>http://www.independent.co.uk/
>
>
>PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
>individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
>part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
>
>>
>Legislation introduced by the last Conservative Government in
>1997 allows some cross-checking between the Department for Social
>Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in certain
>narrowly-defined cases. But there are very strict criteria about
>the conditions in which facts can be passed on and information
>can only be released if there is a suspicion of fraud.
Not so. The change in 1997 (effectively) allows an open flow of information
between the two departments, to the extent that in some areas joint VAT &
Revenue teams are being set up to target some trades. Seems entirely
sensible to me. The headline "snooper computer" is deliberately misleading,
all that appears to be being suggested is that the Government's left hand is
to be allowed to know what the right hand knows. As for access to bank
accounts - only those who can't account for their wealth need have anything
to fear! (Mind you, such a move should increase trade in the Channel Island
and Manx banks so buy your shares now!)
AG
female, although someone else accused you of being a male spook (not real
familiar with the terminology of intrigues). I am unable to discern your
agenda to a great extent. Some of it I think I can but not all of it. Now
to continue:
banana wrote:
> It will be great for the rulers of course to build up religious
> nutcasery as a main tendency within the 'opposition'. It is no
> coincidence that '666' is included on all barcodes. It beggars belief
> that this was allowed to get through without any of the decision-makers
> noticing - it was undoubtedly deliberate. Already a lot of what will
> soon be seen as primitive mindcontrol experimentation is being
> deliberately mixed up, by the authorities themselves, with UFO
> nutcasery.
What does this have to do with Diana? Nothing and possibly everything. She
didn't seem interested in religion (other than good works which is probably
the best kind) but I doubt that she knew about this 666 business. If it is
true, she would have had every possible reason to worry about it for the
salvation of her boys. If they come under this system and take the mark,
they might lose their souls. Charles seems too eclectic in matters religion
to take these things seriously. I doubt if this is the case, but if a
mother saw something like this looming on the horizon, she would go to any
extreme to get her children away from it . . . this opens an awful can of
worms . . . you opened it . . .
Where do you stand vis á vis this possibility? Would you accept this 'mark'
personally? How could you survive in a modern society and refuse it?
If this comes to pass, what is your take on what the Vatican would do about
it? Keep quiet? Advise Roman Catholics not to take it? Give them a
'dispensation' forcing them to choose between scripture or the pope? Yes,
indeed, a real can of worms if this system comes to pass.
>
>
> One must forever fight for ground to stand on, to posit a sane and
> thoroughgoing critique of what is really going on, in this period of
> prehistory.
What do you mean by 'prehistory'. More than likely we are in latter history
IMO. Prehistory to what?
>
>
> (However, it must be added that 'Refuse the Mark of the Beast' is
> probably less confusionist and keep-the-lids-on-things as an
>
Only your 'nutcases' will refuse it and those who are confused will not want
to be lumped into their category.
A final question. Have you researched the UPC Code? Do you know a credible
source for materials on which you base your opinion either on the internet
or elsewhere? Please post it if you do.
Will be awaiting your response.
>
> banana
tony
statement from Banana. These following bullet points are ALL contained
within this post by him, and I quote none of these out of context..
1. DNA samples will be taken at birth, and the program is under way.
2. We are all going to have microchip tagging implants within 10 years!!!
3. The number 666 occurs on all barcodes.
And some of you still follow this half wit so called academic who is quite
obviously paranoid to the world about him!!!
Study Banana, and his words, his anti Semitism, his delusions, his bigotry,
his paranoia. Then choose how you accept the validity of his words. But make
that choice from a position of knowledge, not blind following.
Then ask yourself, why does he do it? My own options would be...
A. Perhaps it is deliberate manipulation of the kind he accuses others of.
B. Insecurity and a need to have others accept his ideology - easier through
the Internet perhaps.
C. Mental illness.
Or maybe a little of all three. Cue counter accusations, silence, but
defiantly NOT rational justification from Banana.
banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b87PWDA$+Fp3...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> In article <xFRo3.1016$u5.1...@newsr2.u-net.net>, posted to
> alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '07:16:28' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
> 1999', Liberius <li...@cyprian.uunet.cy> writes:
>
> >
> >Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
> >================================
> >
> >August 01, 1999
> >By Rachel Sylvester
> >The Independent on Sunday
> >http://www.independent.co.uk/
> >
> >
> >PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
> >individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
> >part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
> >considered by Downing Street. The proposal was immediately
> >condemned by civil libertarians last night as a further step
> >towards "big brother Britain."
>
> It will be great for the rulers of course to build up religious
> nutcasery as a main tendency within the 'opposition'. It is no
> coincidence that '666' is included on all barcodes. It beggars belief
> that this was allowed to get through without any of the decision-makers
> noticing - it was undoubtedly deliberate. Already a lot of what will
> soon be seen as primitive mindcontrol experimentation is being
> deliberately mixed up, by the authorities themselves, with UFO
> nutcasery.
>
> One must forever fight for ground to stand on, to posit a sane and
> thoroughgoing critique of what is really going on, in this period of
> prehistory.
>
> (However, it must be added that 'Refuse the Mark of the Beast' is
> probably less confusionist and keep-the-lids-on-things as an
AG
banana wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting this was linked to Princess Diana directly in such a
> way, but...while we're here :-)...
I know; I wasn't either; I doubt that she had any thoughts on it one way or the
other. It was rumored here in America that William had an implant for this
purpose, but I haven't satisfactorily verified it for myself.
> it is a matter of record that Prince
> William is electronically tagged. I would guess that the tag is
> subcutaneous/implanted. It might defeat the alleged purpose (kidnap
> prevention) if it was in his clothing or around a wrist etc.
>
>
>
> No. I would refuse it.
I would do my best to refuse it, too; however, pressure to accept could be almost
overwhelming. On the other hand, it may not come to pass as some envision it and
our conjecturing would be for naught.
>
>
> >How could you survive in a modern society and refuse it?
>
> I don't know. It would be easier at first I suppose.
I don't know either. In a worse case scenario, it would be impossible to survive
for more than a few weeks if that.
>
>
> I manage to shop in supermarkets without having a loyalty card, and pay
> for things without using direct debit. Not that I think it would be as
> easy as *that*, even early on - I'm just trying to get some sort of
> handle here.
Here in America, every supermarket is equipped with scanners to price out our
items at the checkout. Most also have debit card terminals, but few people use
them. Almost all the small retailers have been forced to upgrade or driven out
of business. There are a few holdouts here locally, but most shopping is done
'high tech'. I thought Britain would probably lag behind the US in this regard.
I was there in 1972 and supermarkets were almost nonexistent then. It seemed you
had to visit a butcher, greengrocer, bakery, chemist, etc. That may have changed
considerably by now. In my area most people pay with cash, check or food stamps
issued by the Department of Agriculture.
A disturbing recent trend is that supermarket chains are being bought up by
consortiums as if they weren't big and powerful enough already. We could be
seeing a monopoly on our food supply before much longer if this trend keeps up
and I don't see it reversing.
I snipped the transportation tagging because to my knowledge that is not
happening here where I am but I have heard of it in some places on our side of
the pond but haven't witnessed it first hand. We are starting to get lots of
video cameras along some of the busier thoroughfares; ostensably to catch traffic
offenders, but I know personally of a case where a surveillance camera at a local
Kwik Shop was used to prove that a person was in the area at the time. Now this
was no doubt merely a matter of the shop cooperating with the police and turning
the film over to them, but I wonder how voluntary it was. Much of this I am
uninformed about. We are quite accustomed to surveillance cameras at many, many
retail outlets and gas stations, not only on the customers, but also on the
employees! In the case of the latter it is allegedly so they can determine if
pilfering of money is taking place. How uncomfortable it would be to perform
one's job under constant surveillance; however, people of all stripes are
becoming quite accustomed to it in one form or another.
> IOf course this is not yet mass implantation. But 2 years is soonere than
> 10 years! :-) The jumps upward in the amount of people subject to
> specific kinds of modern surveillance and control, and the specific ways
> in which new kinds of control will be implemented - should be
> hypothesised about a lot more.
When you mentioned 2010 or 10 years, that's when I decided to respond to your
post. I was hypothesizing, again *if* it comes to pass, it might be more like 50
years, but now you've got me wondering again . . . In the US I don't know of any
implantations personally, but they have been documented abroad. Here locally we
have the pet tagging, but no humans that I know of. We do monitor some criminals
using electronic surveillance in the form of leg bracelets.
Interestingly, there are several cases at our local mental health center who
believe they have implants. It is becoming a delusion on the part of many as I
doubt if any here in the US knowingly have anything like this; although there is
much talk of alien implants which I give no credence to whatever. It is said
that Timothy McVeigh believed he was implanted during his service in the Persian
Gulf War.
>
>
> It is pretty general for this kind of stuff to be portrayed as being in
> the interests of public health and the protection of children,
As it would be. The only reason I would be against it is because of my religious
beliefs; otherwise it seems like a wise measure to prevent crime and kidnapping.
> so I
> wouldn't be at all surprised if schools and the health service play an
> important role. The health service is already one of the biggest 'scams'
> there is, and has a readymade network which can be used to do all sorts
> of wicked things. (One recalls the testing of radioactivity on Asian
> women in Coventry in the 1970s - doctors organised the bringing of
> radioactive chapatis - literally - round their doors).
We had testing of blacks in the south for syphillis and some whom I consider
'nutcases' claim that we have all kinds of experimentation on unknowing civilians
nowdays but I am very hesitant to believe this, although I do know there have
been various abuses in the past. I have the awful feeling that *some* are making
these accusations to promote their agenda and using fear to scare people from
taking anthrax shots, etc. It seems to me that much damage can be done to our
national defense if this keeps up. Personally, I am more leery and untrusting
than I ever used to be. I think more before I take a course of action and used
to blindly follow the powers that be.
> Similarly in the
> school sector there is a lot of insane robotic insitutionalised cruelty.
> (One recalls after the mass murder of young children in a school in
> central Scotland by a youth club director, the social workers and
> teachers and officials kept the parents locked outside the school
> compound for hours, all the time denying that there had been any deaths,
> while of course the police were briefing the press, so the parents were
> hearing what had happened on the radio. The bureaucrats wanted their
> 'procedures' in place, believing they were the 'experts', their
> 'expertise' had to be enforced against the 'punters' in question. After
> several hours a bus was brought in, so that the parents could be driven
> through the gates to be processed by the correct bureacurats in the
> appropriate way - oh yes, and informed as to what had happened - I don't
> know whether the parents' ID was checked, but it wouldn't surprise me -
> the bus was necessary so that they didn't go to see for themselves. What
> is really terrifying is that the rule of the officials didn't break down
> here).
I'd better not have an opinion on this because it was such a horror and some kind
of order had to be maintained. As a parent in such a situation, I would have
been hysterically out of control and some of that had to be ameliorated. Will
defer further discussion in this area to another time and/or place.
>
>
> I would say the whole area, the dynamic of technofascism, needs to be
> discussed a lot more. You mention my 'agenda', part of it is definitely
> to help encourage discussion of the tendency towards technofascism.
It is a train out of control I think. There is no going back. Control issues
aside, there is a lot at stake in the form of future markets for new products and
big money interests, and money will always take precedent to anything else.
>
>
> Who knows, perhaps in a few years time it might be possible to do a
> magazine or journal on this, or have an international conference or
> something? At the moment, we are still at the stage of having to work
> out and test the most useful concepts. Ian Tillium's article on
> technofascism from 1993 was good - it was published in the magazine
> 'Here and Now' in the UK.
The only conferences I know of are how to expand and promote (hate to call it
fascism) increasing use of technology. I rather see it as a two-edged sword; it
can be used for good or ill. Which of us would want to part with our computers?
We are a part of it already.
>
>
> Most of the 'critical community' is still too detail-headed. Part of the
> explanation of this is probably over-compensation against being called a
> 'fanciful' 'conspiracy theorist', leading to an over-concentration on
> proving every last detail. I am a firm believer in the importance of the
> big picture.
If we can discern the big picture. There's the rub. I'm not even sure it's a
conspiracy per se. Like developing railroads; in the beginning I don't see them
as a conspiracy although power brokers in one form or another jumped aboard.
This may not be an overt conspiracy. Personally, I believe in the powers of evil
in spiritual places and if there are any conspirators, they are the ones. Humans
are just chess pieces in their game. Few knowingly know they are part of a
'conspiracy'.
>
>
> (Meantime the idea of 'public opinion' is bourgeois - we are not in that
> ballpark, it is wrong to believe that the rulers 'should' be less
> disgusting and terroristic and blood-sucking than they are, and it is
> counter-productive to encourage anybody to believe this).
The public can no longer have an informed opinion. Truth has become an obscure,
rare commodity.
>
>
> >If this comes to pass, what is your take on what the Vatican would do
> >about
> >it? Keep quiet? Advise Roman Catholics not to take it?
>
> I don't know, I haven't thought about this, you ask some good questions.
> It is possible they would advise Roman Catholics not to take it,
> although if they do, I would see it as a matter of Vatican forces using
> a wedge more than anything else.
>
> On the specific smaller topic of '666', I am rather ignorant about how
> the various parts of Roman Catholicism relate to this. All of the groups
> I have seen who have been into it, have been Protestant.
<skipping the Jesuits> Some believe they are masters of intrigue. I don't
know. I wouldn't knowingly use any product made from fetal tissue now because of
the high probability that it was obtained through abortion and I do not believe
in abortion. I'm not real keen on organ transplants either, although the
Catholic Church has given them a stamp of approval; at least they haven't been
forbidden, although various ethical issues and dangers are inherent therein.
>
>
> >Give them a
> >'dispensation' forcing them to choose between scripture or the pope?
>
> I don't think they're so big on dispensations nowadays ;-)
Come to think of it I haven't heard of any lately.
>
>
> There should be no doubt that the leaderships of both the Vatican and
> the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) will certainly be well informed about the
> technofascist dynamic we are discussing.
Will they? I wonder. The cynical in me tells me they will indeed be informed
about the power and money aspects, but the scriptural? Part of me fears that
they would say that was for another time, it isn't to be taken literally, blah,
blah. Time will tell. Interestingly, there are some dissident Catholic groups
that have become believers in what you are talking about, but most of them seem
to be schismatic. There are two that I know about who think they 'see' this
coming, but they may both be deceased. Catholics do not seem to be concerned
about it. I decided I would be concerned about it when they put a scanner (or
debit card thing) in the church :-). Actually I am very concerned about it right
now. Catholic churches in America are mostly concerned with the abortion issue
politically. Otherwise, it seems to be status quo and preoccupation with getting
and spending and I don't mean that derogatorily necessarily. People are under
tremendous pressure to keep things going financially, health and timewise.
>
>
> Indeed they are but factions within the international ruling class in
> whose collective interests the dynamic is taking place. Here, I note
> that the whole issue of ruling class subjectivity is left untouched by
> practically all so-called 'Marxists' - making a nonsense of their
> reference to the idea that the 'history of all existing societies has
> been the history of class struggles', since a struggle is precisely an
> antagonism, a conflict between two subjectivities. But the recognition
> that there is at one and the same time subjective/objective competition
> *and* subjective/objective unity among the ruling class is necessary to
> get a handle on what kind of society we're living in, let alone the kind
> of period we are living through, and where things are pointing (i.e.
> technofascism).
This is quite a bit over my head to be honest.
>
>
> Although this doesn't mean the Vatican or the Jesuits - or indeed any
> other faction - might not, if it suited their purposes, encourage a
> certain kind of opposition to certain aspects of certain developments.
> That is possible. (Reports on the committee proceedings that led to the
> adoption of the '666' barcode style would be welcome :-) ). (It would be
> great if someone who wasn't a religious nutter could research specific
> aspects such as this - although of course this is just one of many. If
> anybody reading this wishes to dole out a research grant... :-)]).
I'm kind of a religious nutter so I guess I am disqualified. I don't know where
I fit in. Not the extreme right, certainly not the left but even the middle.
Guess I'm a class unto myself for now. I have one book about it. In a separate
post, I'll copy a little from it. I can't post it to my website because of the
copyright, but I think I can quote a little from it. Overall, the author is
questionable; however, if the part I'm quoting is correct, that is quite
credible, if accurate.
>
>
> >Yes,
> >indeed, a real can of worms if this system comes to pass.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> One must forever fight for ground to stand on, to posit a sane and
> >> thoroughgoing critique of what is really going on, in this period of
> >> prehistory.
> >
> >What do you mean by 'prehistory'. More than likely we are in latter history
> >IMO. Prehistory to what?
>
> This is a term from Marx. Prehistory is prior to the future beginning of
> real human history, when there will be no alienation, and in particular
> there will be no alienation of individuals from the species, from their
> humanity. At the moment our very creative and productive abilities to
> act upon and change the environment around us are alienated from us,
> stolen, and crushed into the abstract common denominator of 'average
> socially-necessary labour time', itself determined from the exploiters'
> point of view and by means of the exchange of products, of things. When
> that state of affairs is overturned, individuals and the species can
> shine, we will have real community, real human individuality - free
> human activity as our prime need, a realised need - the beginning of the
> history of humanity, free at last from the muck.
Now look what I've gone and done. I've gotten myself into a dialog with a
Marxist. I don't think I care much for Marx. You still seem to have hope for a
better society here on earth. I do not. To me things will become progressively
better and worse. A paradox. Until the end.
>
>
> >> (However, it must be added that 'Refuse the Mark of the Beast' is
> >> probably less confusionist and keep-the-lids-on-things as an
> >>
> >
> >Only your 'nutcases' will refuse it and those who are confused will not want
> >to be lumped into their category.
>
> Not quite sure of your meaning here. Those who are less confused than
> the nutcases will also refuse it, surely?
I think most intelligent people would be inclined to accept it. Only those on
the fringes of society, many of them mentally ill, would resist. Here in America
there is great paranoia about guns as you are probably aware. These people
promote the ideaa of the coming mark. To me the gun issue is separate and one
clouds the other. I cannot envision where all this will lead.
>
>
> >A final question. Have you researched the UPC Code? Do you know a credible
> >source for materials on which you base your opinion either on the internet
> >or elsewhere? Please post it if you do.
>
> No, I haven't researched the UPC code. I base my opinion of the
> existence of the '666' 'mark' within the coding on what is clearly there
> - easily demonstrable to someone who isn't aware of it by showing them a
> barcode with a '6' in it - one can see that the bars at the beginning,
> in the middle, and at the end, if read as digits, spell '666'. But
> research on the relevant committee deliberations and proceedings would
> be interesting and worthwhile.
Yes, if any other reader doubts the veracity of what you maintain, I scanned an
American one and uploaded it at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~agless/UPCSample.jpg
Now my identity can be fairly easily traced but I have little, if anything, to
hide. In a separate post I'll copy just a couple of things from my questionable
book, the ONLY material I have on this. There is much on the internet about it,
but I don't trust the sources particularly. Perhaps I'll attempt to gather more
materials about this. I'm a little afraid to because I do believe that the
companies involved don't want it publicized because it might promote fear and
detremental effects to their corporate images, even to the point of lawsuits such
as the Proctor and Gamble one that is pending based on slander(?) of someone
publishing that their corporate logo (the half moon and whatever else is in it)
was satanic in origin, so I must be careful.
>
> --
> banana
AG
From "The New Money System" by Mary Stewart Relfe, Ph.D., copyright 1982.
There are lots of details, but I'll try to condense it to just some items on pp
54 and 55.
Each digit has two possible binary configurations, depending on whether it is on
the left side or right side of the UPC code (the standard, common version).
0 0001101 or 1110010 (each is the inverse of the other)
1 0011001 or 1100110
2 0010011 or 1101100
3 0111101 or 1000010
4 0100011 or 1011100
5 0110001 or 1001110
6 0101111 or 1010000
7 0111011 or 1000100
8 0110111 or 1001000
9 0001011 or 1110100
Note that neither side is the binary equivalent of the digit it represents; I
don't know why. I do know that an eight position number for binary 1 would be
00000001 or it's two's complement of 11111110 (I think). As you can see, that is
not the way 1 is represented above. The binary value for the 1 would be
0+0+16+8+0+0+1 = 25.
Each of these is interpreted by fills of black in the bar code corresponding
fields where all the 1's are. The scanner evidently reads the spaces and bars
and translates them into the proper corresponding digits.
Now for the Left Guard, Right Guard and Center Pattern, it is shown a little
differently, even though it looks exactly like the six from the right pattern
above. The left and right are represented by only three positions, whereas the
center pattern is represented by 5. They are respectively: 101 101 and
01010. In binary coding, these would represent the digits 5, 5, and 10,
respectively, if that is correct. All I know is how they appear on the page. If
this is the case, they are not really sixes as such but they appear in barcode
patterns exactly like sixes.
It's been a long time since I worked and studied in this area, so I am open for
correction - but not flaming :-).
The source is claimed to be "UPC Standard Symbol, Version A Encoding for Entire
Set. From NCR Reference Library NCR 225/726 Information, pages 7 and 8."
So there you have it in a nutshell, although it is quite a bit more involved that
the above, so much so that I would be hard put to explain it.
This is the only documentation I have ever seen for the 666 and the bar code
theory. Bear in mind that there are many, many barcodes that do not use these
patterns. This is the one usually found in grocery stores on foodstuffs and
almost all smaller consumer items.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '16:18:42' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
1999', AG <nom...@earthlink.net> writes:
<snip>
>banana wrote:
>
>> It will be great for the rulers of course to build up religious
>> nutcasery as a main tendency within the 'opposition'. It is no
>> coincidence that '666' is included on all barcodes. It beggars belief
>> that this was allowed to get through without any of the decision-makers
>> noticing - it was undoubtedly deliberate. Already a lot of what will
>> soon be seen as primitive mindcontrol experimentation is being
>> deliberately mixed up, by the authorities themselves, with UFO
>> nutcasery.
>
>What does this have to do with Diana? Nothing and possibly everything. She
>didn't seem interested in religion (other than good works which is probably
>the best kind) but I doubt that she knew about this 666 business. If it is
>true, she would have had every possible reason to worry about it for the
>salvation of her boys. If they come under this system and take the mark,
>they might lose their souls. Charles seems too eclectic in matters religion
>to take these things seriously. I doubt if this is the case, but if a
>mother saw something like this looming on the horizon, she would go to any
>extreme to get her children away from it . . . this opens an awful can of
>worms . . . you opened it . . .
I wasn't suggesting this was linked to Princess Diana directly in such a
way, but...while we're here :-)...it is a matter of record that Prince
William is electronically tagged. I would guess that the tag is
subcutaneous/implanted. It might defeat the alleged purpose (kidnap
prevention) if it was in his clothing or around a wrist etc.
>Where do you stand vis á vis this possibility? Would you accept this
>'mark' personally?
No. I would refuse it.
>How could you survive in a modern society and refuse it?
I don't know. It would be easier at first I suppose.
I manage to shop in supermarkets without having a loyalty card, and pay
for things without using direct debit. Not that I think it would be as
easy as *that*, even early on - I'm just trying to get some sort of
handle here. It's matter of 'how difficult?' In some cities it is much
easier to enter by car if the car is tagged (such as Oslo). If your car
is not tagged (with a small plastic covered electronic device placed at
the top of the windscreen), you have to stop at the booth and pay a
toll. It's obvious that all movements of tagged cars are monitored, not
just when they enter or leave Oslo. And when States collect information
on people, they don't throw it away. In Britain I would envisage that
some of the big jumps forward in surveillance/control would be targeted
at groups smaller than the entire population but still very large:
criminals (already a third of the adult male population has a criminal
record - specific early targets are/would be newly convicted criminals,
people leaving prison, and indeed anyone who is arrested for anything,
even if they are later found not guilty or perhaps not even charged),
drivers, welfare claimants, the unemployed, the employed. Or maybe users
of public transport (I believe smart cards are generally used by bus
passengers in fascist Singapore). Or shoppers. The supermarket chain
Tesco's - a company which is so close to the government that its sale of
a document that few people had ever heard about, the government's annual
report on how it's been doing over the last year, was widely reported
last week in the media - plans to 'offer' the tagging of young children
taken shopping by their parents - (this is from the front page of
today's Observer newspaper - which is in the same stable as the Blairite
Guardian newspaper) - allegedly to protect them from child molesters.
Parents are being encouraged to believe that when they reach down to get
a tin of baked beans in the supermarket, someone might snatch their
child, therefore best to be safe and get them to wear a tag when they
walk in the door. I am not joking! (Reports on how common child-tagging
is in supermarkets in America would be very welcome). (An aside here: it
has been discussed too whether or not to allow people to vote in
supermarkets - supermarkets are not especially nice places, but if this
happens they will be even nastier for those people who are critical and
intelligent enough not to allow their children to be tagged, and not to
vote). Smaller groups of people including some who suffer from senile
dementia or are classified as mentally ill, and others who are
classified as juvenile delinquents, are tagged already.
Of course this is not yet mass implantation. But 2 years is soonere than
10 years! :-) The jumps upward in the amount of people subject to
specific kinds of modern surveillance and control, and the specific ways
in which new kinds of control will be implemented - should be
hypothesised about a lot more.
It is pretty general for this kind of stuff to be portrayed as being in
the interests of public health and the protection of children, so I
wouldn't be at all surprised if schools and the health service play an
important role. The health service is already one of the biggest 'scams'
there is, and has a readymade network which can be used to do all sorts
of wicked things. (One recalls the testing of radioactivity on Asian
women in Coventry in the 1970s - doctors organised the bringing of
radioactive chapatis - literally - round their doors). Similarly in the
school sector there is a lot of insane robotic insitutionalised cruelty.
(One recalls after the mass murder of young children in a school in
central Scotland by a youth club director, the social workers and
teachers and officials kept the parents locked outside the school
compound for hours, all the time denying that there had been any deaths,
while of course the police were briefing the press, so the parents were
hearing what had happened on the radio. The bureaucrats wanted their
'procedures' in place, believing they were the 'experts', their
'expertise' had to be enforced against the 'punters' in question. After
several hours a bus was brought in, so that the parents could be driven
through the gates to be processed by the correct bureacurats in the
appropriate way - oh yes, and informed as to what had happened - I don't
know whether the parents' ID was checked, but it wouldn't surprise me -
the bus was necessary so that they didn't go to see for themselves. What
is really terrifying is that the rule of the officials didn't break down
here).
I would say the whole area, the dynamic of technofascism, needs to be
discussed a lot more. You mention my 'agenda', part of it is definitely
to help encourage discussion of the tendency towards technofascism.
Who knows, perhaps in a few years time it might be possible to do a
magazine or journal on this, or have an international conference or
something? At the moment, we are still at the stage of having to work
out and test the most useful concepts. Ian Tillium's article on
technofascism from 1993 was good - it was published in the magazine
'Here and Now' in the UK.
Most of the 'critical community' is still too detail-headed. Part of the
explanation of this is probably over-compensation against being called a
'fanciful' 'conspiracy theorist', leading to an over-concentration on
proving every last detail. I am a firm believer in the importance of the
big picture.
(Meantime the idea of 'public opinion' is bourgeois - we are not in that
ballpark, it is wrong to believe that the rulers 'should' be less
disgusting and terroristic and blood-sucking than they are, and it is
counter-productive to encourage anybody to believe this).
>If this comes to pass, what is your take on what the Vatican would do
>about
>it? Keep quiet? Advise Roman Catholics not to take it?
I don't know, I haven't thought about this, you ask some good questions.
It is possible they would advise Roman Catholics not to take it,
although if they do, I would see it as a matter of Vatican forces using
a wedge more than anything else.
Notably, when there was a mass vaccination campaign in the UK a few
years ago (they are quite frequent now), it was opposed by Cardinal Hume
and the Jesuit private school - publicly. The reason given was that
material from aborted foetuses was used in the preparation of the
vaccine. One has to say, this is indeed disgusting, but it is not highly
unusual. Material is taken both from aborted foetuses and from corpses -
yes, without consent - for uses in the medical industry. There is a
large Roman Catholic presence in the British national health service and
on local health authorities and committees, etc., but I have never heard
of a policy of opposition to the use of all materials resulting from
abortions. Were the Jesuits firing a shot across somebody's bows?
On the specific smaller topic of '666', I am rather ignorant about how
the various parts of Roman Catholicism relate to this. All of the groups
I have seen who have been into it, have been Protestant.
>Give them a
>'dispensation' forcing them to choose between scripture or the pope?
I don't think they're so big on dispensations nowadays ;-)
There should be no doubt that the leaderships of both the Vatican and
the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) will certainly be well informed about the
technofascist dynamic we are discussing.
Indeed they are but factions within the international ruling class in
whose collective interests the dynamic is taking place. Here, I note
that the whole issue of ruling class subjectivity is left untouched by
practically all so-called 'Marxists' - making a nonsense of their
reference to the idea that the 'history of all existing societies has
been the history of class struggles', since a struggle is precisely an
antagonism, a conflict between two subjectivities. But the recognition
that there is at one and the same time subjective/objective competition
*and* subjective/objective unity among the ruling class is necessary to
get a handle on what kind of society we're living in, let alone the kind
of period we are living through, and where things are pointing (i.e.
technofascism).
Although this doesn't mean the Vatican or the Jesuits - or indeed any
other faction - might not, if it suited their purposes, encourage a
certain kind of opposition to certain aspects of certain developments.
That is possible. (Reports on the committee proceedings that led to the
adoption of the '666' barcode style would be welcome :-) ). (It would be
great if someone who wasn't a religious nutter could research specific
aspects such as this - although of course this is just one of many. If
anybody reading this wishes to dole out a research grant... :-)]).
>Yes,
>indeed, a real can of worms if this system comes to pass.
>
>>
>>
>> One must forever fight for ground to stand on, to posit a sane and
>> thoroughgoing critique of what is really going on, in this period of
>> prehistory.
>
>What do you mean by 'prehistory'. More than likely we are in latter history
>IMO. Prehistory to what?
This is a term from Marx. Prehistory is prior to the future beginning of
real human history, when there will be no alienation, and in particular
there will be no alienation of individuals from the species, from their
humanity. At the moment our very creative and productive abilities to
act upon and change the environment around us are alienated from us,
stolen, and crushed into the abstract common denominator of 'average
socially-necessary labour time', itself determined from the exploiters'
point of view and by means of the exchange of products, of things. When
that state of affairs is overturned, individuals and the species can
shine, we will have real community, real human individuality - free
human activity as our prime need, a realised need - the beginning of the
history of humanity, free at last from the muck.
>> (However, it must be added that 'Refuse the Mark of the Beast' is
>> probably less confusionist and keep-the-lids-on-things as an
>>
>
>Only your 'nutcases' will refuse it and those who are confused will not want
>to be lumped into their category.
Not quite sure of your meaning here. Those who are less confused than
the nutcases will also refuse it, surely?
>A final question. Have you researched the UPC Code? Do you know a credible
>source for materials on which you base your opinion either on the internet
>or elsewhere? Please post it if you do.
No, I haven't researched the UPC code. I base my opinion of the
existence of the '666' 'mark' within the coding on what is clearly there
- easily demonstrable to someone who isn't aware of it by showing them a
barcode with a '6' in it - one can see that the bars at the beginning,
in the middle, and at the end, if read as digits, spell '666'. But
research on the relevant committee deliberations and proceedings would
be interesting and worthwhile.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '16:49:33' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
1999', SFD <sfdn...@workline.com> writes:
>
>
>Liberius wrote:
>
>> Big Brother Blair plans 'snooper computer'
>> ================================
>>
>> August 01, 1999
>> By Rachel Sylvester
>> The Independent on Sunday
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/
>>
>> PERSONAL bank accounts, confidential medical records and
>> individual tax files are set to be accessed by the Government as
>> part of a far-reaching clamp down on fraud being actively
>> considered by Downing Street. The proposal was immediately
>> condemned by civil libertarians last night as a further step
>> towards "big brother Britain."
>>
>
The computer sector-government interface (local government as well as
central government) is known for such scams, one could also point to
enormous info-tech scams in the national health service. It's not
surprising, one is talking about public sector contracts and also a
specific field where the 'experts' are related to as being a 'priestly'
caste apart. (Which largely explains why most office desktop PCs were
always Wintel machines rather than Macs). A few tens of million quid
'overspent' isn't much weight to the argument IMO.
There was a scam in the income tax sector where revenue officials were
over-taxing people who had re-entered employment after a period of
unemployment. Screwing the weak, basically, but what else does one
expect? Computers always get blamed but this was an example of officials
managing to play datasystems to their own advantage in a big way. One
shouldn't underestimate sophistication in this regard. Undoubtedly they
were also acting with higher-ups, in fact I should imagine they were
deliberately given incentives to act in this way. (Just as job centre
managers were, prior to the 1997 election - in their case, incentives to
'find jobs' for people. Anyone who knows anything about job centres
knows that the last thing they ever do is find anyone a job. They know
fuck-all about how to do *that*. So of course the managers just got
lists of recently hired workers from the managers of McDonalds
restaurants, or just made them up, but they were too lazy to do the
typing, and since it meant extra work for the typing clerks, the latter
did things like entering all the made-up people as if they had birthdays
of 1 January. The Department for Education and Employment, and probably
a cabinet sub-committee, knew exactly what they were doing, they knew
how to handle their own bureaucracy). Projects where advantages can be
gained by 'over-spending' are generally overspent on - e.g. the British
Library construction project, or the Channel Tunnel, which were
overspent by hundreds of millions of pounds (i.e. more government money
in the pockets of the construction bosses and bankers). That's not a
failure, there are probably people who have bought Caribbean islands off
the proceeds.
It does however conflict with what they say about the projects
beforehand, but one shouldn't judge people by what they say about what
they're aiming for or doing. In this case, the government hardly *wants*
to catch all 'tax criminals'; just as the customs officials and police
do not want to catch all drug bosses; and the government doesn't want to
increase literacy or educational provision, or indeed reduce drug
addiction. Quite the contrary in all these cases).
Big picture is undoubtedly increasing surveillance, increasing control,
increasing ***centralisation of information***. Problems to do with data
analysis, control systems, can be dealt with if not completely solved.
Digitalisation 'at source' of information regarding people's movements
is the way things are pointing. This has already happened with regard to
the movement of cars and money.
--
banana
Gary Stone
Even without reading this Ng, I have believed for a long time now that
control of the populace is and must be one of the main agendas of 'they'. I
don't know who 'they' are, but I know that they're out there, and if I can
avoid them I will as long as I can. The more I read, the more the intangible
things I believe seem to be unfolding before my eyes, and believe me,
reading has always been my education, and it has taken many years for me to
be able to read a book again, an article, an opinion, be it flawed or
factual, it doesn't really matter, because it stimulates me and I think and
I write and if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't matter because the fact
that I have done it is a wonder to me. This may not have anything to do with
Diana, but it does in so much as I desperately want to come to terms with
her death, and by studying all the information this NG brings to the front,
I can form an opinion as to what is going on in my planet, and that is
thanks to all posters, well most, who bring to light all kinds of things
that one would not normally come across in the mainstream of journalism. I
am reading up on the illuminati, SMOM , the Trilateral and CFR, the OSAE
and many more, and maybe as I get better, I will wow you all, but I may not,
you all seem so far ahead. As for being paranoid, I don't think that Mr B is
being paranoid, I think that his projections of the future world are quite
probably, are in progress as we speak, and we wont know the extent of it
until it is too late. Fortunately our generation will probably be dead by
then, but we leave a grim future for the children. Orson Wells had a real
instinct for what was going to happen to this planet, he was just off by a
few years, and the bug here is, what can we do about it? bugger all I'd say,
just be aware, keep learning and remain true to you and yours.
Geths
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '23:23:26' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
1999', tony <REMOVEME...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>Everyone on this NG should read and remember this bizarre and deluded
>statement from Banana. These following bullet points are ALL contained
>within this post by him, and I quote none of these out of context..
Clearly some people know which way the wind is blowing, and want to
discuss it, others don't. Thanks for reposting what I actually said,
since it makes your errors clear.
You say I said:
>1. DNA samples will be taken at birth, and the program is under way.
What I actually said was
>>I imagine this has already
^^^^^^^^^
>> started
(I would add though that maybe already some of the samples taken
*before* birth, used in the brazenly eugenicist 'Downs' tests encouraged
by British GPs and gynaecologists, are kept for DNA-analysis purposes).
As for whether, in the future, DNA samples *will* be taken at birth,
frankly if somebody doesn't realise this then they haven't put much
effort into looking at the dynamic of present history.
I guess you would have thrown insults at someone 20 years ago who had
the foresight and intelligence to suggest that electronic tagging of
convicts would become widespread, and that the objects of such tagging
would be monitored through radiotelephony.
You say I said:
>2. We are all going to have microchip tagging implants within 10 years!!!
What I actually said was:
>>We are probably talking mass microchip implantation
^^^^^^^^
>> by say 2010.
^^^
Are you unable to counter my statements in any other way than by making
such lazy errors?
>3. The number 666 occurs on all barcodes.
It does. It is quite well known. I should imagine that you might know
several people who are aware of it. Ask around and maybe someone will
demonstrate it to you. It is easily demonstrable if one has to hand any
item bearing a code that includes a '6'.
>Study Banana, and his words, his anti Semitism,
Here I do not believe you are being stupid, you are a barefaced liar.
You know damned well that I am not an anti-Semite.
Not that I think you have a clue what anti-Semitism means, as you have
suggested that people who are anti-masonic tend to be anti-Semitic - a
bigoted and ignorant suggestion if ever I have heard one. Was Stephen
Knight anti-Semitic? Is David Yallop? Is Martin Short? (I refer of
course to authors of well-known books exposing goings-on within
freemasonry). Of course they aren't.
>Study Banana, and his words, his anti Semitism, his delusions, his bigotry,
>his paranoia. Then choose how you accept the validity of his words. But make
>that choice from a position of knowledge, not blind following.
>
>Then ask yourself, why does he do it? My own options would be...
>A. Perhaps it is deliberate manipulation of the kind he accuses others of.
>B. Insecurity and a need to have others accept his ideology - easier through
>the Internet perhaps.
>C. Mental illness.
>
>Or maybe a little of all three. Cue counter accusations, silence, but
>defiantly NOT rational justification from Banana.
Rational justification of what? What you say is false.
I am a committed and radical opponent of anti-Semitism. I am on record
as denouncing anti-Semitism including when it cloaks itself in
anti-Zionism and when it comes from the left. You really don't know your
arse (US: ass) from a hole in the ground in this connection.
I am not deluded. (Clearly though one would not expect a deluded person
to justify their delusion rationally, but then I doubt that syllogisms
and formal logic are de rigueur down the golf club or in the bar at the
council offices in Sheffield).
As for paranoia, well this is a psychiatric term. I needn't go on about
the American Psychiatric Association, Ewen Cameron, or even pseudo-
opposition, anti-psychiatry, RD Laing, etc. Still less the Heidelberg
Patients' Collective in Germany. Nor need I belabour the point that
someone who thinks the 'bad days' regarding public mental health policy
lie in the distant past, would be living in cloud cuckoo land. But tell
me, Mr Cynical and Offensive Businessman who 'realises' there's no
viable form of human society that's more 'workable' than 'dog eat dog'
(a rule however that with starry eyes you deny applies to the royal
family), since you use this 'paranoia' concept, what category do you
oppose it to, what term would you use to describe 'justified suspicion'?
One doesn't need to believe in aliens from Zeta Reticuli to remark upon
the fact that there is no term for 'justified suspicion' in wide usage,
employed as the 'opposite' member of a pair, 'opposite' to 'paranoia'.
Just as there isn't a term in common usage to denote a healthy interest
in ruling elite activity, distinguished from the largely derogatory
'conspiracy theory'.
You don't seem to have anything to say about DNA sampling or microchip
implantation other than to throw abuse and lies at me. As Alan (who
often has an attractive turn of phrase) put it, your next original
thought will be your first.
I killfiled two other 'accidentalists' recently, this may have been
guessed, you appear to be trying to start a flaming match with me, just
as other frequent-posting 'assassinationists' are also being flamed at
the moment. Your lying accusation of anti-Semitism makes this clear. If
I were a rich businessman, you would not make this accusation, I guess
you would be afraid of being sued for libel; you would withdraw it on
legal advice, I reckon, even if you didn't learn how vile an insult I
and many others consider it to be. But I do not intend to engage in a
flame war with you. I do not forget what period we are in: namely,
awaiting the announcement of the judicial decision in France regarding
whether or not anybody will be prosecuted in connection with the crash
of 31 August 1997.
--
banana
banana
In article <37A521E4...@earthlink.net>, posted to
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '23:43:17' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
Thanks very much for this AG.
See also the site by a Professor of English (!) Robert Harris, at
<http://www.sccu.edu/RHarris/barcode.htm>. This is exemplary for how
people can tie themselves up in knots when they tenaciously fight for
some ideology, in his case presumably a 'conspiracy-debunking',
'everything is whoops-a-daisy', 'there's nothing in the shadows here,
and I know because I'm a scientist' ideology. His site contains the
wonderful statement:
"Here, even though there are four elements (two bars and two spaces),
they do not represent a number because none of the numbers are made up
of all thin elements (see below)"!
Like yeah, right. The fact remains that there is a set of lines that
appears on all barcodes, containing a left, middle, and right element,
and *if* each element *is* read as a digit, then the only digit that
will work, in each of the three cases, is '6'. His text is however very
well worth reading, as it explains UPC barcode design quite well. In
particular, it shows (although not in so many words), that whereas 6
always has the two thin lines when it appears on the right hand side, it
doesn't when it appears on the left hand side.
The following is why this is so.
On the right hand side, 6 is, as you say, 1010000. This will appear as
two thin lines, so long as the last digit of the string to the left is
0. As your list shows, this is always the case: all strings on the right
hand side end in 0. (I am using the term 'string' to mean the seven-
binary-digit representation of a decimal digit). This is also true of
the middle guard string, which is 1010. Thus, 6 *always* yields two thin
lines when it appears on the right hand side, even when it is the first
digit. There are also some digit *pairs* that will also yield two thin
lines. Namely, 0 or 5 (for which the strings end in 010), when followed
by 3,4,5,6,7, or 8 (for which the strings all begin with 10).
On the left hand side, Morris shows that 6 does not always yield two
thin bars. Looking at what happens when it is preceded by another 6 is
sufficient to show this. Morris also takes the barcode for a given item
and writes,
"Note that on the right there might appear to be two thin bars just
above the six, but on the left, the pattern above the six looks like a
thin bar and a very wide bar",
This is an objection that requires to be taken on board. So when do we
get two thin bars? The answer is again when we get one of a set of digit
pairs. Namely, 0,1,3 or 5 (for which the strings end in 01) when
followed by 4 or 6 (for which the strings all begin with 010).
Above I tried to state carefully what I shall call the B666 Conjecture,
(for Barcode 666), like this:
***THE B666 CONJECTURE***
There is a set of lines that appears on all UPC barcodes,
containing a left, middle, and right element, and *if* each
element *is* read as denoting a digit, then the only digit that will
work, in each of the three cases, is '6'.
*************************
Now let us look at this from another angle. We have looked at the
representation of 6 on both sides, and also at the conditions for the
appearance of two thin lines, again, on both sides - realising of course
that 'two thin lines' in effect means not (X)101(X), but rather
(X)01010(X), because on each side of the lines themselves, we have
looked for space, otherwise the lines would not appear as thin.
Morris makes an error in suggesting that the middle guard section is
formed of 'two bars and two spaces'. It is not. If it were 0101, the
second bar would never be thin (single-thickness), because the first
string on the right hand side always begins with 1, and therefore the
rightmost bar of the middle guard section would merge into it. Nor is
the middle guard section 1010, because then one would always get the
leftmost bar of the guard section merging into the last digit of the
last string on the righthand side. Clearly this never happens - UPC
barcodes always contain two thin lines in the middle. This is precisely
what the B666 conjecture relies upon, namely that there are always three
pairs of thin lines, on all UPC codes, on the lefthand side, in the
middle, and on the righthand side. Morris's error is indicative of the
lack of care he has taken with his analysis. The guard section is in
fact five units, not four units, in thickness. It is 01010. (Note here
that *all* lefthand strings end in 0 and *all* righthand strings begin
with 0, so the fact that the middle guard part has
five sections and not four is hardly difficult to notice).
Morris refers to 'glancers', supposedly fodder for being duped by
'believers' in the B666 Conjecture, but in fact it is he himself who is
the 'glancer', as he makes an glaring error. This is despite the fair
point that he makes, of course, which I will now come to.
The question to which the B666 Conjecture is an answer is this:
if the three 'guard' sections (which appear on all UPC barcodes) are
read as digits, which digits should they be read as?
The B666 Conjecture answers '666'. Morris answers 'no digits', partly on
specious grounds such as the fact that the guard sections contain four
elements whereas none of the strings for decimal digits do. (In fact
this is not only specious, it is, as I have shown, false, since the
middle guard section contains five sections).
So...let us look at this another way. The lefthand guard gives us 1010,
the middle guard gives us 01010, the righthand guard gives us 0101
or, read from the right, 1010. Barcodes are made to be read in either
direction. (I am counting the barcode type digit and check digit as
being outside of the guard sections here, as they are not the same for
all items, and are not 'wrapping' in this sense - they contain
information which differs according to what the item is).
Let us ask the simple question:
for what digits do the strings contain the substrings '1010' or '0101'?
Yes, we know that the strings for decimal digits are seven units in
length and not four units in length, but still, do these four-digit
strings appear in the strings for any of the digits, and if so, which
ones?
The answer is clear. '1010' appears once only in a string for a decimal
digit. The digit in question is 6. Similarly, '0101' appears once only,
and the digit in question is also 6. (1010 is the left guard, it appears
in the string for a righthand 6; 0101 is the right guard, it appears in
the string for a lefthand 6, but I really do not think that undermines
the B666 conjecture to any great extent. If you say to a program reading
a barcode, 'Here is a string - 0101 (or 1010) - it is only four binary
digits long, but from what you know of the code, what decimal digit does
it indicate?', the only reasonable answer is '6'.
Which leaves us with the middle guard, 01010. The middle guard can be
taken as not being on either side, but rather in the middle. As I noted,
the last digit of the lefthand side and the first digit of the righthand
side are always 1. The 0s at the beginning and the end of the middle
guard can therefore be read as guard digits themselves, they ensure that
the string 101 is 'wrapped' within two 0s, which means that visually it
appears as two thin lines separated by a thin space. Or in binary, 101.
If the 0s were not there, one would get the 1s of this triplet next to
the last 1 of the lefthand side and the first one of the righthand side.
The lines would not therefore be thin. Indeed their thickness would be
variable. If the last lefthand decimal digit was 5 (yielding 0110001),
and the first righthand one was 4, for example (yielding 1011100), the
left and right middle lines would both be double thickness. If the
digits were 6 and 2 (yielding 0101111 and 1101100 respectively), the
lines would be respectively five units thick and three units thick. The
presence of the first and fifth digits in the five-digit middle guard
thus ensure that the visible middle lines are always only a single unit
thick.
Visually, then, it is the 101 that is important.
Now let us ask: consider the seven-digit binary string for each decimal
digit independently. Is there any string that contains the 01010 that
defines the middle guard? No, there isn't. Is there, however, any string
- and remember, we are considering each string independently, that is,
standing alone, that contains the two thin lines?
Before we answer that question, let us define what we mean by two thin
lines in a single seven-digit, standalone string. (X)01010(Y) would
obviously give us the two thin lines, where X represents "zero or more
other digits". (X)101(Y) would not necessarily do so, because X for
example may stand for '1', and then we have got a thick line and not a
thin one. Rather, we must have (P)101(Q) where both P and Q mean "either
the digit 0, or zero digits". I.e. either a 0, or no digits at all,
because we are (in the case of P) at the beginning of the string, or (in
the case of Q) at the end of the string.
That is a rigorous definition.
And the answer to the question is this: the only string that gives us
the two thin lines, defined in this way, is the string for the decimal
digit 6.
I therefore hold the B666 Conjecture to be true.
(Note that the B666 Conjecture does not refer to 'hidden' 6s, but to a
correspondence between the lines that appear on ALL UPC barcodes, and
the set of digits '666').
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '23:43:17' on 'Sun, 1 Aug
1999', AG <noe...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>From "The New Money System" by Mary Stewart Relfe, Ph.D., copyright 1982.
>
>There are lots of details, but I'll try to condense it to just some items on pp
>54 and 55.
>
>Each digit has two possible binary configurations, depending on whether it is
>on
>the left side or right side of the UPC code (the standard, common version).
<snip>
>This is the one usually found in grocery stores on foodstuffs and
>almost all smaller consumer items.
Some good sites:
The Uniform Code Council's homepage at <http://www.uc-council.org/>
Their brief 'review' of their history is at
<http://www.uc-council.org/about_ucc/uc_history_timeline.html>
(This states:
"1973 March The design of a linear bar code is chosen as the Universal
Product Code symbology".
Holly Sklar's edited book on the Trilateral Commission [1980],
containing articles previously published between 1975 and 1980, shows a
barcode on the front cover, covering part of the globe. The Trilateral
was set up in 1973).
The European Article Numbering Association was chartered in Belgium in
1977. Its EAN-13 code is fully compatible with the UPC code.
It is not as if there is a plethora of different codes all in wide use.
There *is* global standardisation.
The Board of Governors of the Uniform Grocery Product Code Council
(UGPCC) first met in January 1972. The UGPCC became the Uniform Product
Code Council (UPCC) in 1974 and the Uniform Code Council (UCC) in 1984.
(Note - they dropped the reference to the word 'product').
The UCC cooperates closely with EAN International.
There is information on the EAN-UCC global system at
<http://www.ean-ucc.org/home.htm>
The EAN-GCC global system has a number of committees, including a Global
Symbology Committee. The front page for this is at
<http://www.ean-ucc.org/html/gsc.html>
--
banana
AG
Now that I see them I could have run a search - which I did awhile back - but mostly
what I came up with were religious sites - which isn't necessarily bad - but these
will be much more informative in a secular sense. I really appreciate your efforts.
Trevjon
writes:
<SNIP>
You have tried to "decode" barcodes, but unfortunately have made a few
incorrect assumptions.
I will try to highlight them, and feel free to come back and argue, if you
don't agree with my reasoning.
It should be noted that many so called "academics" make the same (or similar)
incorrect assumptions when trying to work out the "maths" of barcodes. What
they tend to forget is that basically the system has evolved as a practical
one, but seem to get bogged down in the theory of it all.
First of all, the method of reading barcodes must be explained briefly. The
laser scanner scans the barcode. It does not just randomly fire a shot of
light at the damn thing though, but very precisely aims a series of laser
pulses at the code. These pulses are tied down to a precise time base (they do
vary, but nowadays are very fast-I do not know the exact frequency, but will
find out). Some of these laser pulses are reflected back (from the white
"spaces"), whilst some of them are absorbed (by the black "bars"). A laser
receiver therefore "counts" the number of reflections received, represented by
a binary 1 (reflected) or binary 0 (not relected), or vice versa, dependent
upon how your computer is configured to read them.
However, this is where you make your first miscalculation, by trying to convert
the coded representations into "proper" binary numbers. You yourself realise
this, and cannot find the true answer, and therefore admit "I don't know why".
Right, first of all, the method of reading barcodes is NOT just a matter of
reading a series black and white stripes. If you go to the local store and
compare different barcodes on different products, you will see that due to
printing restrictions, and other "marketing" problems, the barcodes may be of
differing sizes on different products. This represents a major problem to the
scanner, as it would have to be programmed with millions of different
combinations of sizes to read different barcodes. So how does it overcome this?
With a touch of "simple genius". The first three Guard codes do NOT represent
any number at all. They are only telling the scanner the standard width of the
"bars" and "spaces" on the following barcode. This represents "one unit", and
all the following bars and spaces are in multiples of 1, 2, 3 or 4 of this
standard width. It does not measure the "width" in inches or millimetres, but
by a time base multiple. Rather than representing "101", as you claim, it
could be said to represent 111. or even 000. The scanner uses this
information, along with the "binary" codes, and a check digit, to convert the
information into useful data.
>
>Each digit has two possible binary configurations, depending on whether it is
>on
>the left side or right side of the UPC code (the standard, common version).
>
>0 0001101 or 1110010 (each is the inverse of the other)
>1 0011001 or 1100110
>2 0010011 or 1101100
>3 0111101 or 1000010
>4 0100011 or 1011100
>5 0110001 or 1001110
>6 0101111 or 1010000
>7 0111011 or 1000100
>8 0110111 or 1001000
>9 0001011 or 1110100
Instead of thinking of them as binary numbers, consider the following. Each 1
or 0 represents a standard "unit" of space or bar. The representation for 0
(which is 0001101) may also be represented as 3-2-1-1 ( i.e. 3 unit width
spaces, followed by 2 unit width bars, then 1 unit space and 1 unit bar) This
helps to visualise how the actual codes will look on the product.
This means that the barcode could be one inch long, or one mile long, and (in
theory at least) it would still be able to be read. In reality though, the
barcodes have quite strict ratios of height-length, but the printing processes
are not yet accurate enough to match these "theoretical" boundaries.
>
>Note that neither side is the binary equivalent of the digit it represents; I
>don't know why. I do know that an eight position number for binary 1 would
>be
>00000001 or it's two's complement of 11111110 (I think). As you can see,
>that is
>not the way 1 is represented above. The binary value for the 1 would be
>0+0+16+8+0+0+1 = 25.
Using the new information supplied, the table now looks like this (for the left
hand side of the table only, the right hand side would be the same code
reversed) :-
0= 3-2-1-1
1= 2-2-2-1
2= 2-1-2-2
3= 1-4-1-1
4= 1-1-3-2
5= 1-2-2-2
6= 1-1-1-4
7= 1-3-1-2
8= 1-2-1-3
9= 3-1-1-2
So, after the initial start code (bar space bar,or 101, or 111, or 000, or
whatever) the numbers will be encoded as above. Notice that all the elements
add up to seven.
>
>Each of these is interpreted by fills of black in the bar code corresponding
>fields where all the 1's are. The scanner evidently reads the spaces and
>bars
>and translates them into the proper corresponding digits.
>
>Now for the Left Guard, Right Guard and Center Pattern, it is shown a little
>differently, even though it looks exactly like the six from the right pattern
>above. The left and right are represented by only three positions, whereas
>the
>center pattern is represented by 5. They are respectively: 101 101 and
>01010. In binary coding, these would represent the digits 5, 5, and 10,
>respectively, if that is correct. All I know is how they appear on the page.
>If
>this is the case, they are not really sixes as such but they appear in
>barcode
>patterns exactly like sixes.
No, they appear as "part " of a six. Each coded numerical digit MUST consist
of seven units. Therefore the initial 101, or 111, or 000,(whatever you want
to call it) can NEVER be read as a six, as it never consists of seven units.
The centre guard is represented by the five ONE UNIT width (S-B-S-B-S) , which
you interpret as 01010, but may also be intepreted as 11111, or 00000. Once
again, this can never be represented as "six", as it does not contain seven
digits. This centre code tells the computer that the centre of the code has
been reached. In "binary" form, all the digits to the left of the centre are
odd parity (i.e. they end in a 1) whilst those to the right are even parity
(i.e. they end in a 0). The barcode may therefore be scanned in any direction,
and the computer will sort out which way to read the code.
>
>It's been a long time since I worked and studied in this area, so I am open
>for
>correction - but not flaming :-).
>
>The source is claimed to be "UPC Standard Symbol, Version A Encoding for
>Entire
>Set. From NCR Reference Library NCR 225/726 Information, pages 7 and 8."
>
>So there you have it in a nutshell, although it is quite a bit more involved
>that
>the above, so much so that I would be hard put to explain it.
>
>This is the only documentation I have ever seen for the 666 and the bar code
>theory. Bear in mind that there are many, many barcodes that do not use
>these
>patterns. This is the one usually found in grocery stores on foodstuffs and
>almost all smaller consumer items.
>
>
>
The USA is now the only country that uses UPC. The world-wide standard is now
EAN, with Japan being the odd one out, using JAN. All these standards are
fairly similar, but EAN has an extra 2 digits, to allow a country of origin (of
the code, that is, not necessarily the product). Most modern scanner systems
will read all codes, plus the various (inevitable ) variations.
Trevjon.
AG
is way beyond my ability to procure and I am able to comprehend it only in part. I
did understand most of what you said and want to thank you for taking the time to
write it out in such detail. I do need time to sift through it some more, as well
as check out banana's links little by little.
I have no reason to believe that you are 'spoofing' me and was amazed that you
could come up with this explanation which makes me think you have been down this
road already. Today I was thinking about the complex technology involved and how
it would be synchronized with the software necessary to process the data. Once
interpreted, it should be quite straightforward, although I was a little curious
what software is used nowadays. Am making another assumption that probably any
state of the art software could process the data once it is properly converted.
The bottom line, it seems, is that just because it looks like a six, it ain't
necessarily a six. :). I conclude that it is not a six and not even a number at
all and that because the configuration of the guards and center looks the same as
one configuration for a 6 is coincidental.
Still and all, it may conform to prophecy anyway, but I'm not banking on it.
Thanks again for your time and effort.
Trevjon wrote:
Steve Reed
years, it remains a measure of probability of identification only. Like
references, during interviews with suspects, to "lie-detectors", as used
in the USA, however, reference to "DNA-evidence", by the police, enables
them to bluff interviewees into believing that there is firm evidence
against them, when there isn't. A number of absurd mis-identifications
have been exposed in recent years - a much larger number, no doubt, has
escaped notice. Finger-prints too depend on proportion of "matching
points", not on absolute congruity. Several, well-known, wrongful
convictions have been obtained as a result; but, there again, the bluff-
value, to the police, is enormous.
In article <xFRo3.1016$u5.1...@newsr2.u-net.net>, Liberius
<li...@cyprian.uunet.cy> writes
--
Steve Reed
Trevjon
writes:
>I have no reason to believe that you are 'spoofing' me and was amazed that
>you
>could come up with this explanation which makes me think you have been down
>this
>road already. Today I was thinking about the complex technology involved and
>how
>it would be synchronized with the software necessary to process the data.
>Once
>interpreted, it should be quite straightforward, although I was a little
>curious
>what software is used nowadays. Am making another assumption that probably
>any
>state of the art software could process the data once it is properly
>converted.
The software used to read barcodes merely translates the code into a set of
numbers. These numbers are visable in the "human readable" form below all
barcodes. The first part of the code (to the left) is issued by the UCC
(uniform code council) in the USA, or the EAN international code council in the
rest of the world. Basically this part of the code identifies the manufacturer
of the product. The right hand side of the code is then free to be used by
this manufacturer in any way they see fit, to tie in with their own database.
For example, the manufacturer code for Heinz (in EAN) is 5000157 (the initial
50 representing the UK, as the place of issue of the code, and the 00157 being
issued to Heinz by the EAN council) The five digits to the right are the
appropriate data for the product, and the last digit is a check-sum.
Where space is at a premium, there is a shorter (only 8 digits) code, which is
known as ZSN (Zero Suppressed Numbers). This is a type of "shorthand" where
zeroes are omitted. ZSN codes always begin with a 0.
Books, and pharmaceuticals, have there own slightly differnt versions of the
code.
Trevjon.
AG
bar codes but was afraid to ask.
Anyway, when you mentioned EAN Heinz, I was curious about US Heinz (UCC). So I
went to the fridge and dragged out my ketchup. I have 3 bottles. Hate to run
out. Two in plastic and one in glass (just bought yesterday for 99 cents). The
code is only half. On the plastic bottle (28 oz) the code is 131280. On the new
glass bottle, the code is again half and is 131140. Now I really smell a rat :-).
Seriously, I printed out all your interesting info and you will be given proper
credit when I write my book - which I never will, of course. Actually, I will sock
this info away and maybe at long last someday I'll become an expert at something.
Oh oh. Germany is on ebola alert tonight. What next?
roy andrew crabtree
During the seminal period of the acceptance of finger prints as a reliable
means of identification, there were many years of arguments about how many
"points" of commonality were required to establish "beyond a reasonable
doubt" that the same individual was involved. (this does not deal with
distortions, faking, someone transferring a finger print to falsify
presence, or any one of about 50 other problems with the technique; merely,
what establishes virtual certainty of a match all other items being
correct).
After long argument, a reference standard was established (different in
countries other than the US, and no doubt, having been assailed and attacked
and possibly since changed in the US; though it is difficult to know the
certainty measures since the national databanks of fingerprints are not
public domain to check).
This reference standard established that 14(?) points were required in
COurt to establish identity, though the FBI accepts 11(?) as certainty, and
most police departments use 7-9 as a working measure.
14 points of commonality were once estimated (by what means I do not know,
and I have since come to question many of the measures used in many legal
matters) to result in a measure of 1 chance in 4 quadrillion (4,000 billion,
US measurement) of being not the same individual.
Please note that this only gives a chance of roughly 1 in 400 of two
individuals across the history of mankind to date of having the same
fingerprints.
One sounds very good; the other way of looking at it does not ...
only if the original estimates of probability and factors
independence are correct
And they are not: in fingerprints as in other real life situations, there
are co-factors and traits that are genetic and co-resident within certain
populations. especially familial and tight blood groupings.
Ask yourself the question: Why has Interpol or the FBI never published a
statistical summary against the then current fingerprint database of a
histogram of the percentage of fingerprints sharing N common points with M
other fingerprints (known to be different or not known to be the same).
Known to be different: Established to their satisfaction to be
different individuals.
Not known to be the same: Not established at law (excluding the 14
point test; use
of another test is required here) to be the same individual.
Then: Estimate the probability: if N individual fingerprints have
M other matches at P
common points in Q individuals, what is the probability of 2
individuals having P+1
common points against all of mankind?
Even this has an inherent bias: The known fingerprint database
largely comprises officials,
military, upper class who use it for ID, secured civilians,
potentials checked for ID in a criminal
action but not otherwise suspected (.. and I think you can think of
a few more categories ...),
as well as the mainstays: those suspected of a crime, and a few of
those guilty of crimes.
How can you tell this is an unbiased database relative to
features matching?
Perhaps the probability of two people matching P+1 points is
higher in the
innocent population; perhaps criminals have a higher
probability of matching
innocent individuals? How can you know for sure?
Please note: the database involved is large enough to cross
reference these factors;
has this been done?
Now take DNA:
1) The tests are susceptible to all types of lab error and
contamination.
2) Unlike a fingerprint, which has a well established criterion for
clarity,
DNA samples do not.
3) When you replicate a small sample, even unadulterated, with such
methods as PRC
(polymerase restriction chaining), how can you tell what errors
creep in?
a) Since the material present in a small sample is not know,
the mix of spare DNA
present to cause the replication must be of some proportion
of the four main
amino acids (A/C/G/T); what happens if the sample is such as
to be predominantly
one pair and not the other? What happens to the excess?
How does this affect
the final breakdown?
b) It has been asserted that the restricted chains are
independent of one another.
i) The Human Genome Project and the ICeland DB (and a
few other smaller
resources) are beginning to have enough information
to be able to check this
assertion. Are the sequences actually totally
uniform in distribution?
ii) What happens in the presence of common materials in
blood such as RT/RNA?
Does anyone know the factors of RNA against DNA?
iii) What about other amino acids? Can they combine
with A/C/G/T to cause
an error in the PRC replication of a small sample?
(Such as the enzymes present
in lymph, hormones in major organs, or the complex
soup present in the intestines
and stomach)?
If it should turn out that the 14 points of commonality in fingerprints are
not 1 chance in 4 thousand
million against the same individual, why would you trust that DNA test
stating one chance in one hundred million are correct, even when no errors
are made?
Take a well known case: OJ Simpson. Other considerations aside for the
moment, just the DNA tests, assuming that they were conducted properly and
that there were no disqualifying problems with the methods used: slave
populations were recruited in Africa (... forcefully, at times, I might add
...) from small tribes of quite unpredictable blood characteristics; some
attributes of which were stabilized by a common breeders technique:
inbreeding (.. sorry, but the topic must be raised .. for the following
reasons ...)
A) Families were then destroyed and scattered throughout the
history of slavery and afterwards freedom.
B) Familial characteristics that would serve as indicators could
thus be scattered
geographically; by chance to gather again at a later date
unknown to the
members of that blood line.
Can you really say for sure that the unique characteristics painted on a
piece of film of how far a snippet of DNA traveled under electrophoresis in
so many hours is unique to an individual and not present within a familial
blood grouping of a small tribe, with family members inbred by slavery?
it would be hilarious, if it were not not, to convict the descendant of a
slave because his family's owner once forced brother to sister on pain of
death to decline.
Consider evidence very carefully; the time to start questioning is at the
beginning, in the middle, at the end, and ever afterwards.
Use the techniques; but drop the religious fervor over the concept of
"absolute proof".
It does not exist.