How Facebook and the Iphone Will Lead to Human RFID Chipping in Less Than 10 Years: This Will Happen if Americans Don't Speak Out NOW.

26% of Americans Now Read News on Their Cell Phones.

By CK Hunter 3.3.2010

[ Related article courtesy of]

I happen to be one of those old fashioned “weberatis” who spurn reading news on a cell phone for the luxury of enjoying my news on my laptop with a great cup of coffee, a nice wide bright screen, the privacy of my home office, so that I can relish the photos, graphics, charts, and watch the video clips in full screen mode. Call me quaint. You can also call me once in a blue moon on my super frugal Net 10 phone, [phone bill $19.88 per month] but don’t expect me to sit and carry on about the trivia of the day for more than about 5-6 minutes tops. I have my own good solid reasons for staying off cell phones, and I will NEVER own an iphone, a clever “big brother conceived” product designed to datamine the average American’s every move, and use the data to both market more products to them and to fill up a database with every private detail of their “publicly broadcast lives” all the way down to their minute by minute location in America and their mistress’s shoe size.

Americans, for the most part, are a gullible lot, especially the tech savvy and philosophically clueless younger ones [ages 18 through 38] who gobble up every new gadget offered by NWO owned Corporations [which has been tacitly designed to steal their privacy] as the “hottest new MUST HAVE high tech object,” thus inadvertently giving away their civil rights and privacy by insidiously dripping degrees.

With each new agreement made between mainstream America and Corporate Big Brother, in using these products and internet services, we inch closer to the day when we are suddenly informed that human RFID chipping is not optional, it is now mandatory. By the time that day comes, hundreds of millions of younger Americans will have spent at least 5 to 10 years of their adult lives on, unknowingly allowing the National Clandestine Service to troll through every post, every exchange, every gift, every comment, every cluster of friends and neighbors, every link, and video posted, and every online game they have played, thus article creating a comprehensive psychological and consumer profile database of every American citizen, which will not be used in any benign or harmless way, guaranteed.

This new trend is the most dangerous threat to American civil liberties of anything since Bush W.’s “National Patriot Act” which really accelerated the downhill slide in American civil liberties and personal privacy.

Once founder Mark Zuckerberg began recently announcing, [for his own very specific marketing and wealth building reasons], that there are now “new rules” and “new attitudes” emerging about privacy in America, he inadvertently joined the New World Order private “club med crime cabal”, in spirit, as just one more man who will willingly steal every piece of every American’s private daily life in order to enrich himself and his company, re-sell the data to other NWO companies, and add to the database files, thus continuing the dismal new 21st century trend of robbing us blind of every minute of our daily private lives for new, unknown and not benign reasons. There is a pattern emerging here and I see it just as clearly as the checkerboard of chem-trails that lace the skies over my home each day.

I feel like I could write books, novellas and 10 volume epics on the subject of human RFID chipping and loss of privacy rights and it would make not a

Don't let this happen to you! Speak out!

single bit of difference, at this point. The new “RFID Chipped young American mindset” has now been successfully “programmed in” by American TV and mass media in the past 10 years, to have mainstream society agreeably accept an “Iphone dominated American culture” where your every whim, purchase, trip, phone call, meal, email, internet read, and dozens of other Iphone activities are logged forever into some database with your name, account number and credit card attached to it, goose-stepping us just a little bit closer to the “human RFID chipped surveilled American abyss”, the final cultural black hole, which awaits just around the corner if the present madness of intentionally agreeing to give away of our privacy to total strangers living in corporate glass buildings does not end.

I am warning America, once again, about the dangers of agreeing with Mark Zuckerberg about easements and losses in personal privacy being the new social norm. There is nothing normal or “benign” about what I see happening. I see clearly where this is all going, and I do not want to go there.

Speak for yourself Mark Zuckerberg. It’s not my norm, and it never will be.

Chase Kyla Hunter

Protect your privacy and your identity – Suggested popular RFID Blocking Products, Books, RFID Access Over-ride Products:

Wine Red Leather RFID Blocking Passport Case

Travelon RFID Blocking ID and Boarding Pass Holder

Travelon RFID Blocking Tri-Fold Wallet

DIFRwear RFID Blocking Wallet – Black

Travelon RFID Blocking Passport Case

Travelon RFID Blocking Billfold

MUST READ BOOK: Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID

Bypass Essentials 1101T Universal Bypass Allows remote start in vehicles equipped with Proximity RFID “Push-to-Start” or “Smart Key” systems

RFID: Applications, Security, and Privacy

Socket Communications CompactFlash RFID Reader Card 6E ( RF5400-542 )

[ RFID Technology]  Skin Deep: Man’s Appointment With Destiny

===== Related Articles ========

Tuesday, March 2. 2010

One in four Germans wants microchip under skin: Poll

in Technology

Defined tags for this entry: , , ,

Raw Story |

It sounds like something from a sci-fi film, but one in four Germans would be happy to have a  microchip implanted in their body if they derived concrete benefits from it, a poll Monday showed.

The survey, by German IT industry lobby group BITKOM, was intended to show how the division between real life and the virtual world is increasingly coming down, one of the main themes of the CeBIT trade fair that kicks off Tuesday.

In all, 23 percent of around 1,000 respondents in the survey said they would be prepared to have a chip inserted under their skin “for certain benefits.”

Around one in six (16 percent) said they would wear an implant to allow emergency services to rescue them more quickly in the event of a fire or accident.

And five percent of people said they would be prepared to have an implant to make their shopping go more smoothly.

But 72 percent said they would not “under any circumstances” allow electronics in their body.

The results appeared to surprise even the high-tech sector.

“This is of course an extreme example of how far people can imagine networks going,” said BITKOM chief August-Wilhelm Scheer.

The CeBIT, the world’s biggest high-tech fair, throws its doors open to the public on Tuesday, with Spain, the current EU president, this year’s guest of honour.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero were due to speak later Monday in an official opening ceremony before touring the exhibition early Tuesday.

A total of 4,157 firms from 68 countries are to unveil their latest gadgets, a decline of three percent on last year as many high-tech firms stay away amid strong competition from other events.


The New “News Landscape”: Rise of the Internet

Understanding the Participatory News Consumer

March 1, 2010


In the digital era, news has become omnipresent. Americans access it in multiple formats on multiple platforms on myriad devices. The days of loyalty to a particular news organization on a particular piece of technology in a particular form are gone. The overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspapers, radio and national newspapers. Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.

The internet is at the center of the story of how people’s relationship to news is changing. Six in ten Americans (59%) get news from a combination of online and offline sources on a typical day, and the internet is now the third most popular news platform, behind local television news and national television news.

The process Americans use to get news is based on foraging and opportunism. They seem to access news when the spirit moves them or they have a chance to check up on headlines. At the same time, gathering the news is not entirely an open-ended exploration for consumers, even online where there are limitless possibilities for exploring news. While online, most people say they use between two and five online news sources and 65% say they do not have a single favorite website for news. Some 21% say they routinely rely on just one site for their news and information.

In this new multi-platform media environment, people’s relationship to news is becoming portable, personalized and participatory. These new metrics stand out:

  • Portable: 33% of cell phone owners now access news on their cell phones.
  • Personalized: 28% of internet users have customized their home page to include news from sources and on topics that particularly interest them.
  • Participatory: 37% of internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commented about it, or disseminated it via postings on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter.

To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads. For instance, more than 8 in 10 online news consumers get or share links in emails.

The rise of the internet as a news platform has been an integral part of these changes. This report discusses two significant technological trends that have influenced news consumption behavior: First, the advent of social media like social networking sites and blogs has helped the news become a social experience in fresh ways for consumers. People use their social networks and social networking technology to filter, assess and react to news. Second, the ascent of mobile connectivity via smart phones has turned news gathering and news awareness into an anytime, anywhere affair for a segment of avid news watchers.

These are some of the key findings to come out of a new survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project and the Project for Excellence in Journalism aimed at understanding the new news landscape. Below are some of the other key findings:

The internet has surpassed newspapers and radio in popularity as a news platform on a typical day and now ranks just behind TV.

More than half of American adults (56%) say they follow the news “all or most of the time,” and another quarter (25%) follow the news at least “some of the time.” Asked specifically about their news habits on “a typical day,” the results are striking — 99% of American adults say that on a typical day, they get news from at least one of these media platforms: a local or national print newspaper, a local or national television news broadcast, radio or the internet.

Only local and national TV news, the latter if you combine cable and network, are more popular platforms than the internet for news. And most Americans use a combination of both online and offline sources. On a typical day:

  • 78% of Americans say they get news from a local TV station.
  • 73% say they get news from a national network such as CBS or cable TV station such as CNN or Fox News.
  • 61% say they get some kind of news online.
  • 54% say they listen to a radio news program at home or in the car.
  • 50% say they read news in a local newspaper.
  • 17% say they read news in a national newspaper such as the New York Times or USA Today.

Americans today routinely get their news from multiple sources and a mix of platforms. Nine in ten American adults (92%) get news from multiple platforms on a typical day, with half of those using four to six platforms daily. Fully 59% get news from a combination of online and offline sources on a typical day. Just over a third (38%) rely solely on offline sources, and 2% rely exclusively on the internet for their daily news.

The average online consumer regularly turns to only a few websites.

Most news consumers utilize multiple platforms for news, but online their range of specific outlets is limited. The majority of online news consumers (57%) say they routinely rely on just two to five websites for their news. Only 11% say they get their news from more than five websites and 21% regularly rely on just one site.

Moreover, many do not have strong loyalty to particular online sources. When asked whether they have a favorite online news source, the majority of online news users (65%) say they do not. Among those who do, the most popular sites are those of major news organizations such as such as CNN and Fox.

Internet users use the Web for a range of news, but local is not near the top of the list.

The most popular online news subjects are the weather (followed by 81% of internet news users), national events (73%), health and medicine (66%), business and the economy (64%), international events (62%), and science and technology (60%).

Asked what subjects they would like to receive more coverage, 44% said scientific news and discoveries, 41% said religion and spirituality, 39% said health and medicine, 39% said their state government, and 38% said their neighborhood or local community.

News consumption is a socially-engaging and socially-driven activity, especially online. The public is clearly part of the news process now. Participation by consumers comes more through sharing than through contributing news themselves.

Getting news is often an important social act. Some 72% of American news consumers say they follow the news because they enjoy talking with others about what is happening in the world and 69% say keeping up with the news is a social or civic obligation. And 50% of American news consumers say they rely to some degree on people around them to tell them the news they need to know. Online, the social experience is widespread:

  • 75% of online news consumers say they get news forwarded through email or posts on social networking sites and 52% say they share links to news with others via those means.
  • 51% of social networking site (e.g. Facebook) users who are also online news consumers say that on a typical day they get news items from people they follow. Another 23% of this cohort follow news organizations or individual journalists on social networking sites.

Some 37% of internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commentary about it, or dissemination of news via social media. They have done at least one of the following: commenting on a news story (25%); posting a link on a social networking site (17%); tagging content (11%), creating their own original news material or opinion piece (9%), or Tweeting about news (3%).

News is pocket-sized.

Some 80% of American adults have cell phones today, and 37% of them go online from their phones. The impact of this new mobile technology on news gathering is unmistakable. One quarter (26%) of all Americans say they get some form of news via cell phone today — that amounts to 33% of cell phone owners. These wireless news consumers get the following types of news on their phones:

Wireless news consumers have fitted this “on-the-go” access to news into their already voracious news-gathering habits. They use multiple news media platforms on a typical day, forage widely on news topics and browse the web for a host of subjects.

News is personalized: The “Daily Me” takes shape.

Some 28% of internet users have customized their home page to include news from their favorite source or topics and 40% of internet users say an important feature of a news website to them is the ability to customize the news they get from the site. Moreover, 36% of internet users say an important part of a news website to them is the ability to manipulate content themselves such as graphics, maps and quizzes.

News is easier to follow now, but overwhelming. And most topics get plenty of coverage, in Americans’ eyes.

Americans send mixed messages in the survey about how they feel in a world where news is updated constantly and they can access news all the time. We asked respondents about how the volume of news might play into this: “Compared with five years ago, do you think it is easier or harder to keep up with news and information today?” Some 55% say it is easier, only 18% say it is harder. One quarter of adults (25%) say there is no difference between now and five years ago.

Yet even as they say it is easier to keep up with the news, Americans still feel overwhelmed. Fully 70% agreed with that statement: “The amount of news and information available from different sources today is overwhelming.” Some 25% “completely agreed” with that statement and 45% “mostly agreed.”

Good news, bad news about media performance.

When it comes to the quality of coverage itself, respondents give correspondingly mixed signals. Just under two-thirds (63%) agree with the statement that “major news organizations do a good job covering all of the important news stories and subjects that matter to me.” Yet 72% also back the idea that “most news sources today are biased in their coverage.” Some of the explanation for this dichotomy seems to be rooted in the views of partisans. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to say the big news organizations do a good job on subjects that matter to them, while conservatives and Republicans are the ones most likely to see coverage as biased.

Read the full report at or


January 17, 2010

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg says privacy is dead. So why does he want to keeps this picture hidden?

It’s one law for the rich and another for the rest of us as our secrets are paraded online

By Richard Woods

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg

Let’s pick a person pretty much at random: Dan Braden of Austin, Texas. I do not know Braden at all, but I can tell you that in the past few days he has spent $373.46 on Louis Vuitton goods, $162.47 at a local grocery store, $20 at a fitness centre and $3.23 on iTunes.He is also a regular at Starbucks, went to a Maudie’s Tex-Mex restaurant last week and spent $717.10 on new tyres.Is someone spying on Braden or hacking into his bank account? Nope. Instead, he has signed up to Blippy, a new website that puts online every purchase users make with a designated credit card. He is happy to publicise where he goes and what he buys. No privacy worries for him.“If I buy some Britney Spears, I guess my friends would make fun of me,” said Braden, who works for the computer company Dell. “But I’m not too concerned about privacy. I don’t think I’m doing anything I would be embarrassed about.”

Call it openness or exhibitionism, it is spreading everywhere. On Twitter you can post your thoughts minute by minute. On Facebook and Flickr personal photographs abound. One website will even broadcast your weight to the world every time you step on the bathroom scales.

Do we no longer care about privacy? Not much, claims Mark Zuckerberg, founder and chief executive of Facebook. Last week he declared: “People have gotten really comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people.” He described such lack of privacy as a “social norm”.

To those who grew up peeking at the neighbours from behind net curtains, it might seem crazy. To younger generations, born with the internet in their DNA, Zuckerberg may have a point.

As Daniel Masoliver, a 24-year-old postgraduate student in London, put it: “The only reason privacy ever existed is because Facebook didn’t. People have always liked talking about what they’re into and the more people share information with one another, the more comfortable others are joining in.”

Nevertheless, some online reaction to Zuckerberg’s claims was hostile. “He’s an idiot,” wrote one social networker; “Poppycock,” said another.

Experts in the social networking phenomenon are also concerned. The erosion of privacy, they say, brings dangers for both individuals and the wider body politic.

Sherry Turkle, professor of social studies of science at Massachussets Institute of Technology, said insensitivity to privacy “shows a disregard of history and the importance of privacy to democracy and, I might add, intimacy. Young people are not unconcerned about this matter. But they feel impotent”.

Even Zuckerberg, 25, is not truly comfortable letting it all hang out. When a change to Facebook’s privacy settings happened recently, it revealed pictures on his profile page of him larking around with friends. In some he looked a bit of a dork.

When news of the photographs spread, the images suddenly disappeared again.

Last week a Facebook spokeswoman was backpedalling vigorously, denying Zuckerberg had said privacy was dead. “His remarks were mischaracterised,” she said. “A core part of Facebook’s mission has always been to deliver the tools that empower people with control over their information.”

She added: “If the assertion is that anything Mark chooses to make private is inconsistent with his remarks last week, here are a few other hypocritical elements of his life: he hides his credit card numbers in his wallet, he does not post the passwords to his online accounts, and he closes the door behind him when he goes to the toilet.”

So is privacy no longer the social norm or not?

IN A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times this weekend, 30% of people said they agreed that privacy matters less than it did, and 63% disagreed. Just over 70% said they were worried about private information falling into the hands of others on the internet, while 28% said they were not worried.

The differences of opinion may partly be down to age. The pace of technological change is so fast that researchers believe even small age gaps produce significantly different attitudes and behaviour.

According to America’s Pew Research Centre, 68% of teenagers send instant messages on the internet compared with 59% of twentysomethings, and a far lower proportion of older age groups. In the UK a study of social networking by Ofcom, the communications watchdog, found that 54% of internet users aged 16-24 had set up a profile on a social networking site, with the numbers falling steadily with age.

The younger these “mini-generations” are, the more they appear to accept openness, if only through necessity. If everyone is revealing their lives online, they don’t want to be left out.

“I remember thinking there was something distinctly creepy about Facebook when I went on it for the first time,” said Jack Hancox, 24, of London. “Now it feels completely natural to put photos up and have various profiles on different sites. But still, I think people are quite wary about what they put online.”

By contrast, Bryony, a 15-year-old Facebooker in Hampshire, said: “I don’t think people are worried about it. When you are writing on Facebook, you are caught up in it and don’t think about privacy.”

One of her friends, Peter, said: “I’m not really concerned — except a little if my future boss finds out what it [his Facebook profile] was like. But it would also be cool looking back on it when I was 60.”

Or maybe not. The follies of youth are a necessary rite of passage, says Turkle, and used to be easily left to fade; now they may stick around for ever.

“Adolescents need to fall in and out of love with people and ideas,” said Turkle, whose forthcoming book Alone Together examines friendships in the digital age. “The internet is a rich ground for working through identity. But that does not easily mesh with a life that generates its own electronic shadow.”

In other words, your youthful mistakes may remain for ever on a computer server and come back to haunt you.

Like many social network users, Sophie, another friend in the Hampshire group, takes comfort from Facebook’s privacy settings.

“I’m not really worried,” she said. “I have it set up so only my friends can see stuff.”

Not everyone is convinced by such safeguards. For a start, Facebook has reduced the privacy level of its default setting. If you don’t actively impose privacy, lots of people will have access to your information. It can also become publicly available if a friend’s profile is not properly protected.

Even if you do try to restrict your profile, the data that remains public can still give away a lot about you. Facebook, for example, has no privacy restrictions on your name, photograph, list of friends and certain other material.

By analysing such data, “spider” programs can draw up social graphs that reveal your sexuality, political beliefs and other characteristics. According to Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge, it can be done even if you list as few as eight friends.

That might not matter so much in Britain, says Anderson, “but in a country like Iran, where they punish gays, this is serious stuff”.

Other concerns relate to how social networking sites use your data behind the scenes. Facebook’s privacy policy runs to more than eight pages of A4 and few users will read it. If you do, you will learn that Facebook “may collect information about you from other Facebook users”; keep details of any transactions you make; and allow third parties access to information about you. It also admits it “cannot ensure that information you share on Facebook will not become publicly available”.

EVER since George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Big Brother state has been most people’s first concern about diminishing privacy. Now private organisations and criminals are catching up fast.

The recent book Delete: the Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age cites the case of Stacy Snyder, a student teacher in Pennsylvania. After she posted a picture of herself apparently drunk on a social networking site she was denied a teaching certificate.

Burglars are already thought to use Facebook to try to find out when properties may be left empty. And Anderson warns that “phishing” is a growing threat. Using data gathered from social networking sites, criminals are sending people emails that appear to come from their friends. Research shows that people are far less wary of such emails than unsolicited spam, even though they can lead to identity theft.

While the rest of us find our privacy is up for grabs, the rich and famous are having theirs increasingly protected. Lawyers are using human rights legislation to bring cases in British courts, which are favourable to protestations of privacy.

The latest action has been launched by Kate Middleton, the girlfriend of Prince William, who claims her privacy was violated by a picture of her playing tennis on Christmas Day.

A greater danger than there being one privacy law for the rich and another for everyone else is that of a chronic malaise, at least in the view of Jaron Lanier, author of a new book called You Are Not A Gadget.

Lanier fears that the openness and “collectivity” of today’s internet is leading us towards mediocrity.

“We shouldn’t want the whole world to take on the quality of having been designed by committee,” he said. “When you have everyone collaborate on everything, you generate a dull average outcome in all things.” The best innovation relies on privacy, he says.

The shift towards openness, however, has momentum and attitudes may well be changing as Zuckerberg claimed. Young people are either unaware of the risks or feel that less privacy is the price they have to pay to participate in social networking.

Anderson is only half-joking when he says social networking has become a “survival necessity” for the young.

“At Cambridge all the party invitations go out on Facebook,” he said. “So if you don’t have Facebook, you won’t get invited to any parties, so you won’t have any sex, so you won’t have any children, so your genes die out. So it’s an evolutionary necessity to be on Facebook.”

Just remember, when you accept that Facebook invitation to a hot date, do not use a Blippy card to buy contraceptives on the way there. Unless you want the whole world to know what you are thinking.

Additional reporting: Georgia Warren

About CKH888

Not much to tell. Um.... I author news and art blogs now & then. :-)
This entry was posted in Blogging as Grassroots Activism. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to How Facebook and the Iphone Will Lead to Human RFID Chipping in Less Than 10 Years: This Will Happen if Americans Don't Speak Out NOW.

  1. Pingback: Founder Of Facebook

  2. Pingback: Can An Implanted Human RFID Chip Be Removed? How Difficult Is it? « Alligator Farm

  3. Pingback: Nazi Swastika X-Ident Loyalty Card RFID Chip « Alligator Farm

  4. Pingback: X-Ident Corp. Is Manufacturing RFID Chips in Swastika Shape: Why? « Alligator Farm

  5. Pingback: AMERICAN SOCIALISM RED ALERT: National Health ID Cards Are A Recipe for RFID Disaster « Alligator Farm

  6. Pingback: National Healthcare ID Cards Are Another Forward Step Toward Mandatory Human RFID Chipping: Stop the Madness NOW. « Artopia 444

  7. Pingback: Tea Party Ending, Movement Self Destructs Over 3.21.10 Weekend « Alternative News Forum

  8. Pingback: National Healthcare ID Cards in America Could Lead to an Eventual RFID Hell on Earth « 333 Crucible: The Divine Imperative

  9. Pingback: Significant Videos: Spring Summer 2010 « The Internet Report

  10. Spiderman says:

    Doesn’t the basic instructions before leaving earth speak of it anyway soon one world order even the cartoons the last 17 yrs show it movies I don’t watch much if I do it’s yrs late that’s jus me the storms evil the whole 9

    • CK Hunter says:

      If you are referring to biblical scripture, yes, it does refer to this, the “mark of the Beast” – but I personally have no intention of ever taking such a mark and losing my soul in so doing. In the new testament it is made clear that whoever takes this mark will be lost. That is to say their soul will not be saved and resurrected in the final judgment. I will do whatever it takes, legally, not to take this mark, and there are millions who feel the same way I do. I love my King and I will not worship an imposter.

      God bless and keep you safe in His arms. Thank you for your visit.


  11. Pingback: NWO Project Blue Beam:False Holographic Second Coming « THE TRUTH BEHIND THE SCENES

  12. Pingback: Is the Injectible RFID Microchip the Biblical Prophesied “Mark of the Beast”? « Actuality 777

  13. Pingback: What Facebook is Really For, Beyond the Comic Video’s Opinion « Alternative News Forum

  14. Pingback: All Time Top Posts on Alternative News Forum 2009, 2010 | Alternative News Forum

  15. Pingback: National Healthcare ID Cards: RFID Hell on Earth? « Artopia 444

Leave a comment if you'd like:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s