| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| You hear all the time about fake news. | |
| Well, we're going to talk tonight about some fake investigations, some fake identification, some fake convictions. | |
| This is what our government is doing to us. | |
| And I'm going to tie this in to what we see from WikiLeaks with the latest release of Vault 7, what they call Marble. | |
| We're going to look at that and how that can be used to create false flag operations. | |
| Exactly what we're talking about here is, let's take a look first at the individual level. | |
| This is NBC reporting two days ago. | |
| A stunning drug lab scandal that could overturn 23,000 false convictions. | |
| Now, this is coming out of Massachusetts. | |
| They said about 23,000 people convicted of low-level drug crimes are expected to have their cases wiped away next month en masse, the result of a five-year court fight over the work of one chemist, one person who's doing it. | |
| Now, why would they do that? | |
| Well, I'm going to tell you why. | |
| The same justification we see for much of this other stuff. | |
| Now, one of the people who's a professor at West Virginia University, he serves on the National Commission of Forensic Science. | |
| He said, absolutely stunning. | |
| I've never seen anything like this. | |
| He said, it's unbelievable to me that it could have even happened. | |
| And then when you look at the scope of the number of cases that may be dismissed or vacated, there's no words for it. | |
| Well, let's put some words to it. | |
| Let's understand what's happened here. | |
| Let's say it's taken more than five years to get this point, longer than it took to discover and prosecute the woman who did it. | |
| Her name is Annie Dukin. | |
| She worked at a lab in Boston for nearly a decade before her misconduct was exposed in 2012. She admitted to tampering with evidence, forging test results, lying about it. | |
| She's served three years in prison and was released last year. | |
| Now, some of these people she figured are going to still be in prison while they're still trying to figure out what they're going to do about this. | |
| They said it's not entirely clear why she did this. | |
| They said she's an immigrant from Trinidad. | |
| She felt compelled to change these test results on a massive scale. | |
| They say she was the most prolific analyst there. | |
| See, what she's trying to do, she knows that they want to get these convictions. | |
| She gave them exactly what they wanted. | |
| Convictions, wins, jail terms. | |
| That's what the establishment wants. | |
| She knew what they wanted, so she gave it to them, and she did it very quickly. | |
| She produced false convictions faster than anybody else could do their work because they were trying to do the right thing, presumably. | |
| But let's understand that... | |
| There can be an institutional push to do this as well. | |
| You can have one individual who, to try to further their career, sends other people to jail. | |
| Or you can have a department that does this. | |
| You can have part of the CIA that does this. | |
| Like, for example, the Vault 7 marble that we're going to get to. | |
| But one more thing before we go to that. | |
| That's an article that was on Zero Hedge Day. | |
| Facial recognition tech could ensnare millions of innocent Americans for crimes they didn't commit. | |
| So, see, this is far beyond what's happening in this one laboratory in Massachusetts where one rogue individual working in the lab who wanted to look good and impress her superiors and give them what they wanted, which was convictions, give them wins. | |
| So she framed all these people. | |
| But you need to understand that when we're talking about facial recognition technology, this is something that is a nationwide problem. | |
| This is something that's going to be used by the FBI. For example, They have a program that's called Facial Analysis Comparison Evaluation. | |
| FACE! Isn't that great? | |
| So they look at this, and they've got already, depending on your source, 16 to 18 states. | |
| Actually, this graphic says that there's 18 states. | |
| The article here says that there's 16. I believe the graphic here, you can look at this graphic, and you can see which states are sharing their information, including the driver's license photos that you have, and they're sharing that information with the FBI. Now, what's the problem with this? | |
| Well, the Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney said this. | |
| She detailed, this is from Zero Head, she detailed the stunning scope of the FBI's photo collection. | |
| She said in addition to collecting criminal and civil mug shots, the agency currently has memorandums of understanding with 16, I think it's 18, states that mean every driver's license photo from those states is accessible to the FBI without the driver's consent. | |
| The FBI also has access to photos from the U.S. State Department's passport and visa programs. | |
| And she said this, Americans should not be forced to submit to criminal facial recognition searches merely because they want to drive a car. | |
| But don't worry, they're going to take away your ability to drive a car as well. | |
| And then the car itself will report on where you are, what you're doing, give them all of your geospatial intelligence, your activity-based intelligence, your human domain analytics. | |
| That can all be gleaned because you're going to be sitting there in your little car driving around playing with Facebook because you don't have to take responsibility for your life anymore. | |
| They're going to watch everything that you do. | |
| That's where we're going. | |
| She says Americans shouldn't have to worry that their data will be misused by unethical government officials with unchecked access to facial recognition databases. | |
| They shouldn't have to fear that their every move will be tracked if face recognition is linked to the networks of surveillance cameras that blanket many cities. | |
| Now, you shouldn't have to have that, but you should fear that. | |
| You should understand the implications of that. | |
| You should push back against that now, before they extend this surveillance network onto our actual literal highways. | |
| Not just the information highway, the internet, but our literal highways. | |
| We've talked many times about the implications of this. | |
| You need to understand this. | |
| This whole thing that we're talking about as to whether or not Trump and the Republicans have taken people's privacy. | |
| That is a head fake for political reasons for the most part, folks. | |
| Look, I understand that they're giving these powers to ISPs, but they already had those powers until an 11th hour move by Barack Obama to take away that power to sell that information at the ISPs. | |
| They already had that. | |
| And you have to understand that it's still all social media. | |
| It's still getting that information on you. | |
| And the information... | |
| In spite of what Nancy Pelosi says, she says, oh, it's much more damaging if the ISPs have it. | |
| No, the social media people know far more about you than your ISP will ever know because you give them that information, and they analyze that information. | |
| And the other thing they don't want you to think about is what the government is doing, and what are they doing with your facial information? | |
| See, this is the key. | |
| Once they start analyzing all of this stuff in terms of your metadata, analyzing your face, then the potential for false identification comes up. | |
| Because listen to this. | |
| They point out that the Next Generation Identification Interstate Photo System, NGI IPS, had an acceptable margin error of 20%. | |
| And so that's a 1 in 5 chance of getting the wrong person. | |
| Well, of course, they can also miss the right person, but they can also identify the wrong person. | |
| Think about the fact that when you, if you've played around with speech recognition software, you know that you can get speech recognition software that is in the high 90s in terms of 95% or better accuracy. | |
| And what do you get when you use something that's got 95% accuracy on speech recognition? | |
| You get gibberish. | |
| Absolute gibberish. | |
| And when they're talking about an 80% chance of being able to identify people by facial recognition, you're talking about a lot of exposure, a lot of jeopardy of innocent people. | |
| And this could happen by algorithm, not just simply by a lab technician in one laboratory in one city who wants to impress her superiors. | |
| That's a very serious thing we should be concerned about. | |
| Let's take a look, though, at Marble. | |
| Because this latest tool that's been released, revealed by WikiLeaks as part of Vault 7 is about creating a false face for people. | |
| And with that, they can create a false flag attack. | |
| Now, we knew when this first came out, we were told that they had this project called Umbridge, and that with Umbridge, they could frame people. | |
| And at the time, March 8th, at the time, we had The Intercept come out. | |
| And The Intercept, I think, was wrong on this. | |
| I don't think they were trying to cover up for the intelligence agencies, because Glenn Greenwald has been very good in terms of pushing back against this McCarthyism, saying the Russians have hacked our election. | |
| They looked at this and they said, well, these WikiLeaks, So they pushed back against what WikiLeaks had said. | |
| WikiLeaks had said, look, they're getting the fingerprints and they're doing this stuff. | |
| And of course, we've talked to... | |
| Security experts, William Binney, we had John McAfee on a couple of weeks ago. | |
| He said, of course, they have the interest and the ability to make it look like they're somebody else. | |
| That's what the CIA has always done. | |
| They never want you to know what they're doing. | |
| If they're going to assassinate somebody, if they're going to break into somebody's computer, commit burglaries, they don't want their fingerprints all over something. | |
| They're going to put you in there. | |
| They're going to frame somebody else to do this. | |
| And so now we've had the third release of documents, and WikiLeaks calls them marble. | |
| And they say this is proof that the CIA disguises their hacks as Russians, as Chinese, as Arabic. | |
| This article we have up on Infowars.com today from RT says a marble framework document reveals that it supports the ability to, quote, add foreign languages to malware. | |
| Now comes the fun stuff, it reads, and they list Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic, Farsi, and example codes indicating the potential for the CIA to divert attention to international actors. | |
| What have we heard? | |
| Throughout this entire, the Russians did it. | |
| Well, it looks like it was written and done on a Cyrillic keyboard, okay, and that it had a country of origin, which you can easily disguise as well, routing your information through servers. | |
| So we were told that, oh, look, it has this internal stuff that indicates that it's Russian. | |
| Well, no, they have the ability to mask this. | |
| Now we've had second group of documentary evidence. | |
| So we've had the people who were experts at this explain this to us, like John McAfee. | |
| Common sense would tell you that they would do something like this. | |
| Common sense would tell you that they would be absolutely incompetent if they didn't do this. | |
| They would be fired. | |
| Because they'd probably be jailed for most of the stuff that they do. | |
| So, of course, they're going to hide their tracks. | |
| But now we've had two groups of documents released. | |
| Are you going to still push back on this? | |
| Is the mainstream media still going to ignore this? | |
| Are even the Republican legislators going to ignore this? | |
| I find it very interesting. | |
| Of course, you would expect that the Democrats would want to ignore this. | |
| Why aren't the Republicans talking about this? | |
| I think it's simply because they don't want to ever talk about anything that the CIA does, not even to defend President Trump against impeachment. | |
| They will let this whole charade play out or think that they can defeat it in a different way, rather than hitting it head-on with the truth and showing the documentary evidence that these forensic fingerprints that they found are absolutely meaningless. | |
| They say... | |
| Marble is designed to allow a flexible and easy-to-use obfuscation as string obfuscation algorithms. | |
| So they have a class of algorithms to obscure where this is coming from, okay? | |
| And they talk about this as being a framework document. | |
| This is a framework. | |
| It's about framing whoever they wish to frame for whatever it is that they do, okay? | |
| They say that this would permit a forensic attribution double game. | |
| For example... | |
| By pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English but Chinese, then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, then drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion. | |
| That's the explanation from WikiLeaks. | |
| So there's other things that they can use it for, of course. | |
| But we have to understand, just as Aaron Schwartz pointed out, when he was fighting CISPA, SOPA, ACTA, PIPA, all these different... | |
| Tools that were being put in, legislative tools that would allow you, or rather not allow you, but allow the people who are collecting your data, social media, browsers, Google, even your ISP, would allow them to turn that information over to the government who would use it in the same way they're going to use your facial recognition. | |
| And that is to monitor everything that you're doing and maybe falsely identify you as an enemy of the state. | |
| So when that was coming out, Aaron Schwartz says, no, we don't want to have that. | |
| We want to have the ability to sue these people when they turn over our information to other people, because that's our information. | |
| It's not their information. | |
| They say, we own this information about you, and we're going to turn it over to the government, or we're going to sell it to somebody else. | |
| You know, we look at this situation where, as a protest, one individual says, we're going to do a crowdsourcing. | |
| Fundraiser to raise money and to buy the private records of these congressmen who voted to do this. | |
| I think that's a great idea. | |
| The problem is we need to take a look at this as to where this is eventually going. | |
| When people can buy your information, it isn't that they're simply going to use it to sell you a new tire because they notice that you're searching for tires on the Internet. | |
| So everywhere you go, you're going to see that ad pulled up again about a particular tire. | |
| Or about a particular car or something. | |
| We've all seen that happen to us. | |
| But they're going to also, if they sell this stuff, you could have criminals buy this information so they could use it for identity theft. | |
| But I think it's interesting because this individual is going to go out and get the private browsing history of the people who voted in favor of letting them engage in this kind of commerce and your privacy. | |
| I think it's interesting to note that the very people who are suffering the most from this, can't we understand that both Democrats and Republicans are being investigated and people who supported Hillary thought that she was being unjustly investigated. | |
| People who support Trump think he's being unjustly investigated. | |
| But let's look at the root cause of this. | |
| We have a situation where privacy is absolutely destroyed and the people who are most damaged by this would be the people who are in political office. | |
| They should not have a situation where they could be blackmailed. | |
| They should not have a situation where Somebody could falsely plant information about them, as we know our FBI does, or falsely assume information about them. | |
| They are the ones who are more exposed than the rest of us. | |
| They are the ones who have the power to fix it. | |
| Hopefully, the Democrats and the Republicans will at some point realize that they need to stop bowing down before the surveillance state. | |
| And they need to enact some privacy rules for their own protection. | |
| For their own protection. | |
| Now, I know we've got a lot of Congress people who are criminals and who are child molesters and all that sort of thing, but we have some honest people. | |
| They can be blackmailed with false information that is planted there. | |
| That's the kind of stuff the CIA does. | |
| If they're going to have stuff to... | |
| Falsely attribute this to a foreign country. | |
| Do you think they would have any problem falsely planting information about somebody who was straight up but opposed them? | |
| Of course they wouldn't. | |
| We know what human nature is. | |
| And we have to take away the tools that allow corrupt organizations to use these means to attack people and to destroy our government. | |
| As long as we allow a dark, secret state to develop and to use these tools, they will use them first and foremost against those in power. | |
| and they will use it to make themselves the real government. | |
| Alex Jones here with a very important news update to anybody out there that wants to be prepared. | |
| But it goes beyond being prepared. | |
| Our bodies absolutely must have the good halogen iodine or we will die. | |
| And you look at all of the thyroid problems and all the people that don't have energy and that have all sorts of hormone problems. | |
| And from my research, And a lot of just mainline research, it leads back to iodine over and over and over again. | |
| It's as important as vitamin C. If you don't get iodine, you die. | |
| But most people are just efficient, so they're low energy, they're sick. | |
| You've got to have iodine in your body so that your body can produce the hormones you need. | |
| It is the base to so many things. | |
| And since I got into iodine four years ago, we've helped change the entire paradigm by developing and bringing to the public deep earth crystals from 7,000 to 12,000 feet of the purest iodine available. | |
| Other iodine comes from the ocean or from other byproducts of chemical facilities and it's tainted. | |
| It's bound. | |
| It's not absorbable. | |
| I tried it. | |
| And I had incredible effects even with dirty iodine because the body needs it. | |
| When you don't have iodine, it absorbs the chlorine, the fluoride, and all these other bad halogens. | |
| Do yourself and your family a favor and check out the importance of iodine for yourself. | |
| I think you're going to be blown away. | |
| And whatever you do, support the broadcast and get a bottle of Survival Shield Nascent Iodine X2. Also, consult your physician because if you've been deficient in it or have other issues, it can have some dramatic effects. | |
| As for me and most folks I talk to, it's been a game changer in the positive column. | |
| But still, consult your physician because iodine is no joke. | |
| It's a key building block of the body. | |
| And if you haven't had it for a long time and suddenly have it, some folks say they've experienced 10. Things like a detoxing effect and things like that. | |
| You've got to have vitamin C. You've got to have iodine to live. | |
| You've got to have water to live. | |
| Iodine is key. | |
| You must have it. | |
| But consult your physician first before you get powerful. | |
| Survival Shield Nason Iodine X2 at InfoWarsLife.com or call toll free. | |
| We can answer your questions. |
Export Selection