Video streaming site Rumble Wednesday refused a request by His Majesty’s Government to demonetize influencer Russel Brand over sexual allegations that he denies.Brand, who hosts a weekly YouTube show with 6.6 million subscribers, has been outwardly critical of lockdowns, the COVID-19 vaccine, governments, large corporations and mainstream narratives. His smaller YouTube channels total over half a million subscribers. Brand also has a channel on TikTOk with 2.3 million followers and on Rumble with 1.6 million subscribers.On Tuesday YouTube demonetized Brand after the&nbsp;Sunday Times&nbsp;reported that four women are accusing Brand of sexual assault over a decade ago. Brand has vehemently refuted the claims.The next day, UK Commons Culture Committee Chair Dame Caroline Dinenage wrote a letter to TikTok’s European Director of Government Relations Dr. Theo Bertram asking the platform to follow YouTube’s example. Dinenage acknowledged Brand’s content had not broken any rules, but the official nevertheless asked TikTok to demonetize the content. She also expressed concern that Brand was allowed to respond to the accusations:<blockquote>Although Mr Brand no longer appears on television, he now has a follower base on social media, including on TikTok where this weekend he republished his pre-emptive response to the accusations made against him by the Sunday Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches.While we recognise that TikTok is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, and his content may be within the Community Guidelines set out by the platform, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his TikTok posts, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him, and what the platform is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour.</blockquote>TikTok confirmed that Brand was never part of a revenue sharing program,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tiktok-asked-russell-brand-cashing-30977217">according</a> to the&nbsp;Mirror, and has not been compensated for his content.Dinenage then sent a nearly identical letter to Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski but received a different response.Pavlovski published a response to the UK government which is being widely praised across social media and has been viewed 10 million times on X alone. The Rumble CEO began by calling the UK's letter “extremely disturbing”:<blockquote>Today we received an extremely disturbing letter from a committee chair in the UK Parliament.&nbsp;While Rumble obviously deplores any sexual assault, rape, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform.Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet—meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform.We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. SIngling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don’t agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform.Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company’s values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament’s demands.</blockquote><div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Rumble's response to the UK Parliament's letter to our CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/chrispavlovski?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chrispavlovski</a> <a href="https://t.co/iSCpHIHoU4">pic.twitter.com/iSCpHIHoU4</a>— Rumble - $RUM (@rumblevideo) <a href="https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1704584927834960196?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 20, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Many are suggesting — as are popular figures like billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and reporter Tucker Carlson — that the as yet-unproven allegations and ensuing repercussions are part of a coordinated attack on Brand for his influential views. Netizens across social media are sharing a video of Brand which they suggest explains the media onslaught.In an appearance on&nbsp;Real Time with Bill Maher, Brand said "the pandemic created at least 40 new big pharma billionaires” and that “pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID-19 vaccine.""More than two-thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election," he continued. "Pfizer Chairman Albert Bourla told&nbsp;Time magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money. And of course, Pfizer made 100 million dollars in profit in 2022.""[Y]ou, the American public, funded the development of that,” Brand said to the audience. "When it came to the profits, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding.”“An economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war. . .you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis,” he concluded to applause.<div class="raw-html-embed"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Russell Brand: “An economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war … you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis.”<a href="https://t.co/GtNnwl9WWN">pic.twitter.com/GtNnwl9WWN</a>— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) <a href="https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1632045193456422914?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Trevi Women, a charity which Brand supported through his own Stay Free Foundation, also announced it was cutting ties with Brand over the allegations.Public influential figures who oppose government messaging are often targets of unproven sexual allegations.Tim Ballard, the real-life hero of the the hit anti-pedophile film Sound of Freedom was recently accused by media of sexual assault against seven anonymous women. Ballard categorically&nbsp;<a href="https://people.com/sound-of-freedom-subject-tim-ballard-responds-to-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-7971426">denies</a> all claims.Elon Musk, who was accused of sexual assault last year after announcing his bid to acquire Twitter (now X), expressed support for Brand in light of the accusations: "Of course. They don't like the competition,” he posted. “I support Russell Brand. That man is not evil,” he added in another post.Tucker Carlson, who was accused earlier this year of workplace sexual harassment, wrote, “Criticize the drug companies, question the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure this is going to happen.”Masculinist influencer Andrew Tate, who spent months in house arrest in Romania over sex trafficking allegations and is currently awaiting trial, chimed in, “Welcome to the club,” he posted. “On my way to fight the crazy b***h allegations.”

2023-09-28 (1).png

Government harrassment

Pushback_Resistance

Censorship

'We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak'

Rumble refuses UK demand to demonetize influencer over unproven allegations

In docs we trustA recent <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-health-misinformation-tracking-poll-pilot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">survey </a>conducted by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) on “Health Misinformation” has found that the overwhelming majority of Americans trust their doctors' healthcare advice. The findings hold true among both Republicans and Democrats.<figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714606005/trust_docs_c16369c905.png"></figure>&nbsp;In CDC, we don't necessarily trustThe difference in level of trust between supporters of the two parties varied greatly, though, when they were asked about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with 87 percent of Democrats and 49 percent of Republicans saying they trusted information deriving from the CDC. Republicans tended to trust their local health officials more, with the figure rising to almost 60 percent.Lunna Lopes, the lead author of the report and the senior survey analyst at KFF, concluded that family physicians are therefore best situated to produce behavioral changes espoused by public health officials:<blockquote>Doctors are particularly well positioned to be the messengers when it comes to health recommendations that people really trust.</blockquote>The survey also revealed that even people who use social media a great deal are relatively skeptical when it comes to accepting healthcare-related advice from any of the various platforms, and indeed, from media of any kind. People are far more ready to place their trust in a healthcare professional with whom they are acquainted, and this will have come as no surprise to governments across the globe who directed a good deal of their messaging toward GPs during the COVID period.&nbsp;You paid your doctor. But someone else paid moreTrust in one's doctor can seem intuitive; after all, the physician is being paid to take care of your health. Few people consider that they are not the only people paying doctors, though, and that their admittedly considerable bills are often dwarfed by what physicians receive from other sources.In 2014, the government decided to make some of this information freely available to the public, with the passage of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. As the title of the legislation indicates, the intent of the legislators was not only to reveal how much money doctors and other healthcare workers were receiving from the pharmaceutical companies, but also to enable people to use this information to reduce corruption.&nbsp;How many people, however, have ever heard of <a href="https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">CMS Open Payments</a>? Not many, despite their website being extremely user-friendly. If you want to look up your local doctor and see who, aside from his patients, has been paying him, it is very simple to do so. A random inquiry into one Dr. Robert D. Abbott, of Virginia, for example, reveals that in 2021, he was paid $11.49 by AbbVie Inc. for “food and beverage.”Was $11.49 enough to change Dr. Abbott's prescribing practices? AbbVie, the maker of Humira for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, clearly believes that giving doctors money for food and drink is a worthwhile investment, however. In 2022, the pharma company handed out $17 million for “food and beverage” to doctors, in just over 870,000 payments, representing almost 15 percent of its total payments to healthcare workers that year.This sum is not atypical of pharma companies; Pfizer, for instance, handed out around $3.5 million to physicians that same year in almost 200,000 individual payments. Merck spent around $2.5 million in the same category of expenses — other categories include “travel and lodging,” “education,” “charitable contribution,” and compensation for serving as a speaker.<figure class="image"><img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1714607691/abbvie_4d796864cd.png"></figure>&nbsp;Patients talk, but money talks louderIdentifying a clear cause-and-effect relationship between Pharma money and pharma prescriptions is not at all simple. However, some effect between money and physicians' actions has been acknowledged by at least one government. In 2017, the British National Health Service (NHS) decided to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/73/10/2883/5043144?login=false" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">award</a> local health authorities £5 per person in their area if they managed to reduce the local level of antibiotic prescribing by at least one percent. The result? Prescriptions for antibiotics <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/186968/financial-incentives-help-drive-down-unnecessary/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dropped</a> by at least three percent following the implementation of the scheme.This was doubly significant, because already several years before the financial incentive scheme, a huge campaign against over-prescribing of antibiotics was launched in the U.K., with very limited success, even though GPs were trained in the potential danger of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). According to an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/soft-touch-gps-told-to-stop-giving-antibiotics-to-pushy-patients-so-as-to-curb-rise-of-drugresistant-superbugs-10459183.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">article </a>dating from 2015,&nbsp;<blockquote>Nine out of ten GPs say they feel pressurised to issue the prescriptions and 97 percent of patients who ask for them are prescribed them … As many as 10 million prescriptions, about a quarter of the annual total, are being given unnecessarily to patients who will not benefit from the drugs.</blockquote>&nbsp;Singling out physicians works as wellIn Australia, authorities tried a different approach to cutting the number of antibiotic prescriptions: <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-antibiotics-arent-always-needed-heres-how-gps-can-avoid-overprescribing-213981" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“feedback letters”</a> sent out by the Health Department to certain doctors, telling them that they were prescribing far more antibiotics than the national average. The result of this campaign was apparently a drop of around nine percent in prescriptions.&nbsp;Name and shameThe personal approach has also been tried with some success in the U.S. back in 2018, when researchers in conjunction with the CDC and Medicare launched a <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/07/636184559/dear-doctor-letters-use-peer-pressure-government-warning-to-stop-overprescribing?utm_campaign=KHN%3A%20First%20Edition&amp;utm_source=hs_email&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_content=65018734&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_uAza7T_wksDL41S6Uwt8IHsD1diJAaI02thw5QgBLtjojWkYVMuYZvZqwLx8AH5zjOKUivuIVpbCBJhaMGT2ERlADCA&amp;_hsmi=65018734" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“Dear Doctor” study</a> with the aim of cutting the number of prescriptions for Seroquel being handed out by GPs. Seroquel is a commonly prescribed neuroleptic ("antipsychotic") drug which is often used off label (that is, to treat symptoms and/or conditions for which it was not originally licensed).In this study, individual physicians received letters from Medicare telling them that they were writing many more prescriptions for the drug than the state average. The doctors were also told that they were “flagged”:<blockquote>You have been flagged as a markedly unusual prescriber, subject to review by the Center for Program Integrity.</blockquote>The study found that doctors cut back Seroquel prescriptions by around 16 percent as a result.&nbsp;Misguided compassion?Seroquel has its uses, of course, but when prescribed, for example, to the elderly population, it can frequently hasten a patient's demise. Don't doctors know this? Of course they do. The FDA issued a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556368/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">warning</a> on use of Seroquel in the elderly as far back as 2005. But perhaps many GPs simply find it hard to say “no” to someone who is exhausted from looking after an elderly parent with dementia and wants to give them something to “make them a bit easier to deal with.”&nbsp;In more notorious cases, doctors have been documented handing out antipsychotics to help parents deal with “difficult" children, with sometimes fatal results, as with the case of <a href="https://www.lubinandmeyer.com/news/psych_drugs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Rebecca Riley</a>, who was just two when a doctor prescribed her Clonidine, Seroquel, and Depakote for “bipolar disorder.”&nbsp;Lots and lots of black boxesSeroquel is hardly the only dangerous drug being overprescribed. Most psychiatric drugs are handed out not by psychiatrists but by GPs, though it is unclear whether restricting the ability to prescribe these drugs to psychiatrists would have an impact on the number of prescriptions issued.What do GPs know about the dangers of psychiatric medication? <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/06/tail-wags-dog-eventually-dog-bites/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According </a>to one recent medical school graduate, what she was taught about psychiatry amounted to:<blockquote>Elicit a list of symptoms, pick any diagnosis that seems to fit, and write a prescription for any SSRI.</blockquote>SSRIs, the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, have “boxed warnings” (once known as “black box warnings”). Horrific as the side effects can be, the withdrawal effects can be far worse. Do GPs know the extent of these adverse events? As recently as last year, the British Journal of General Practice published <a href="https://bjgp.org/content/73/728/138" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">advice </a>to GPs on antidepressant withdrawal. But SSRIs have been around for decades. Why do doctors still need to be educated on this topic?Apparently they do. In Australia, where <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/04/overprescribing-madness/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">around 90 percent</a> of all antidepressants are prescribed by GPs, clinical guidance is <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/12/family-physicians-must-change-antidepressant-prescribing-practices/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">not followed</a> in the majority of cases, with the average duration of “therapy” lasting for four years when the official recommendation is for between six and twelve months of treatment, and that only in moderate-to-severe cases.&nbsp;The gold still glitters in the sunshineWill more education help? Antibiotics and antidepressants remain among the most prescribed drugs. Even the Sunshine Act hasn't helped, according to a <a href="https://www.madinamerica.com/2021/04/transparency-not-enough-stem-tide-pharma-influence-medicine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study </a>conducted in 2021 which found that,<blockquote>… the mandated financial disclosures have not prevented physicians from being influenced by pharmaceutical industry money … Leading experts on financial conflicts of interest … investigated the policy's impact over the seven years it has been in effect. They found no evidence that physician behavior regarding financial conflicts of interest has changed in that time.</blockquote>The authors of the study concluded that,<blockquote>Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient to address the damage that industry relationships cause to medical knowledge and public health.</blockquote>&nbsp;Get it (the message) or dieCloser to “home,” how many GPs told their patients about the many reasons to doubt the safety of the COVID jabs? How many GPs were sufficiently well educated on the dangers, the multiple studies coming out, the background to the mRNA platform, and more, to be able to provide the possibility of informed consent?More alarmingly, a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953623005075" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study</a> published in 2023 surveying primary care physicians on the methods they used to persuade hesitant patients to agree to be jabbed found that three percent of doctors admitted using “guilt/fear messaging” to “motivate” people, including making statements such as “get it or die.”

doctor money.jpg

Malpractice

Doctors, like the rest of us, often succumb to pressure — or money

95 percent of both Republicans & Democrats trust their personal physicians' advice. Should they?

<h2>Who controls your car?</h2>Could your car be controlled by someone or something other than yourself? This question is real, not imaginative, and may become more relevant to more drivers in the coming years. As Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/kill-switch-to-be-mandated-in-cars-by-2026-with-software-deciding-if-you-re-too-impaired-to-drive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>, infrastructure bill H.R.3684, Section 24220, Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology, mandates that by 2026 all new cars must include technology to passively monitor drivers for drunk or impaired driving.&nbsp;Should a car's software algorithm determine that the driver is impaired, it is required to “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Although the bill does not explicitly use the term “kill switch,” most readers understand it to be just that.Former Congressman Robert Barr <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/29/barr-bidens-infrastructure-bill-contains-backdoor-kill-switch-for-cars/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">discussed</a> the bill with the Daily Caller in November 2021, shortly after Biden signed it. Among other issues, Barr raised concerns about data being stolen and cars being hacked and controlled by unauthorized parties.<blockquote>Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares.First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time. (Emphases added.)</blockquote>Barr questioned who would have access to the data, how it could be accessed, and by whom — police without a warrant . . . private entities . . . hackers?<blockquote>Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, there also is no detail in the legislation about who would have access to the data collected and stored by the system. Could it be used by police, and could they access this information without a warrant? What about insurance companies, eager to know with what frequency their customers drove after drinking alcohol, even if it was below the legal limit? Such a trove of data presents a lucrative prize to all manner of public and private entities (including hackers), none of which have our best interests at heart.</blockquote><h2>Auto lenders already use kill switches</h2>Others have also expressed concern about hackers taking control of cars, for good reason.Kill switches have already been used, by companies providing sub-prime auto loans, to disable the cars of delinquent payers. Borrowers who have have their cars disabled, without laws in place to protect drivers, face a variety of problems, some life-threatening.Is it likely that drivers affected by the 2026 mandate will face situations such as those described below?<h3>Cars permanently disabled</h3>Andy Grimm, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/13/23206224/car-lot-lender-deactivated-cars-with-kill-switch-after-borrowers-fell-behind-on-payments-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told</a> of a 2022 lawsuit being brought against a lender for using a kill-switch to permanently disable the cars of two individuals who lost their jobs in the spring of 2020, fell behind in their car payments, “and found their vehicles had stopped working thanks to a “vehicle starter interrupter switch” installed by their car dealers and lender.” Their cars have been sitting in front of their homes for two years.&nbsp;<h3>Car stopped while driving on the highway</h3>The HuffPost <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220306012916/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your_b_5bfd9668e4b052aa1843d8be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detailed</a> the dangerous situation one woman faced when her car was turned off while she was driving on a highway:<blockquote>[Las Vegas resident T. Candice] Smith in 2013 testified to the Nevada legislature that her car’s kill switch activated as she was driving down Interstate 15.“All of a sudden the steering wheel locked up and the car shut off,” she testified. “I was barely able to make it to the left shoulder. I was scared and shaking and had no idea what just happened.”</blockquote><h3>Few laws to protect car owners</h3>According to the HuffPost, few states have enacted laws regulating the use of kill switches.<blockquote>But only half a dozen states have enacted regulations on kill switches, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Nevada and New Jersey. The laws vary, but all, at the least, require telling the borrower that the devices, which also have GPS tracking, are installed.The Colorado law specifically prohibits stopping the vehicle if doing so would pose a danger to its occupants, such as when it’s in motion. Most of the other laws call for 24 or 48 hours’ notice before the vehicle is disabled, and many allow grace periods or emergency overrides.Sophia Romero, staff attorney in the Consumer Rights Project at the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, said it took years and a series of lawsuits for the law in her state to catch up with the practice of installing the devices on cars. (Emphasis added.)</blockquote><h3>Hackers could stop your car, too</h3>Vintage race car driver Lauren Fix reported on 'kill switches' for Car Coach Reports (in the below video @3:05), noting the potential for hackers to retrieve a driver's data stored by the system and even take control of a vehicle.<blockquote>. . . tracking that data also makes it possible for bad actors to retrieve that because it's open.&nbsp;More pressing than the privacy concerns though are the safety issues included is an automatic kill switch with internet access. Now we all know that hackers have accessed cars before and they can access this system and this represents an obvious scenario that a malicious agent could disable your vehicle remotely with no warning.</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="1046" height="523" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/meTUTfliL9o" title="Biden's Bill Has BACK DOOR KILL Switch On YOUR CAR by 2026" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>&nbsp;Commenters on a FrontPage Magazine article about the law governing kill switches were likewise <a href="https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-kill-switch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">concerned</a> about cars being stopped/hacked while being driven:<blockquote>What happens when someone like China hacks the system and shuts all the cars down?This is a really bad idea. What happens in an emergency? No fleeing from criminals, violent mobs, natural disasters, or dashes to the hospital. These things take more than 15 seconds. [This refers to a California law requiring technology to prevent cars from going10 miles above the speed limit: “New cars will have a special button on the dash. If you suddenly need to speed and manage to find the button when trying to drive out of some bad situation, and it lets you speed for 15 seconds.”] Cars losing power on busy freeways already cause accidents, and just traffic jams, if you’re lucky. I can also foresee people’s cars being shut down just when they’re driving and eating. (Emphasis added,)________________________________________I’m a non-driver, but even my non-existent expertise would lead me to question how any manufacturer can guarantee that shut-down would occur in a safe and controlled way. What if the car stops itself suddenly and the driver behind you rams your car? Unless an on-board computer can evaluate all of the external factors, there is no way that this is any safer than relying on human judgement (most people want to survive, which is the sort of consideration that is unlikely to be factored into a computer’s processes)________________________________________</blockquote><blockquote>. . . imagine an interstate highway, where the cars cruise along at 70 mph, and some hacker, or misguided government employee hist this kills switch? There would be a 40 car pileup, with dead and injured all over the place. Terrorists wouldn’t have to use car bombs anymore, just shut off some cars on a busy, fast moving highway, and enjoy the carnage from an overpass. . . . I wonder how long before the aftermarket will start selling a way to kill for the kill switch, along with the surveillance equipment, if they are not already? (Emphases added.)</blockquote><h2 style="margin-left:0px;">Congress won't defund mandate implementation</h2>In his article, Barr said that, after implementation of the law, we would lose ,“the freedom of the open road" that individual car ownership brought to the American Dream."&nbsp;Representative Thomas Massie (video below) attempted to preserve that freedom, this past November, with a proposed amendment to the Congressional bill that would remove funding for enforcing the law: &nbsp;<blockquote>Allowing the car to disable itself I think is troublesome. We don’t have a lot of time. This is supposed to be implemented in 2026. And I don’t know about you all, but I would like to know when I put my family in the car and I’m taking a trip somewhere, the car is not going to disqualify me.&nbsp;</blockquote>&nbsp;<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1DIZJEWE6KE?si=d3Xt52Vqny4R-A_i" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>&nbsp;Massie's amendment, to limit implementation of the ‘kill switch’ mandate, ultimately failed to pass as nineteen House Republicans joined Democrats to <a href="https://100percentfedup.com/update-19-house-republicans-vote-against-defunding-kill-switch-mandate-for-new-vehicles/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">defeat</a> the amendment, allowing the law to pass in its original form with provisions for enforcement of the “Kill Switch” mandate.Related articles:&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/kill-switch-to-be-mandated-in-cars-by-2026-with-software-deciding-if-you-re-too-impaired-to-drive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive</a><a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law">Cars to be programmed to limit speed if California bill becomes law</a>

car hacker.jpg

Technology

surveillance

Auto loan company activated 'switch' as woman drove down Interstate 15

Will hackers be able to stop your car with mandated 'Kill Switch?'

<h2>How much of your safety should you delegate to government?&nbsp;</h2>In the name of safety, the government has taken steps that critics say have denied citizens what used to be considered inalienable constitutional rights.Citizens are concerned that their right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment is being <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-social-media-sites-government-content-misinformation-censorship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">denied</a>, ostensibly, to keep citizens safe from "harmful misinformation," and fear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is being <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/amendment-losing-relevance-gun-debate/story?id=79474562" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">infringed</a> upon to combat gun violence. Watchdogs further contend that citizens are being denied the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to face one's accuser when technology is used to gather evidence.&nbsp;The fear now is that increased use of technology will soon mean an even greater loss of privacy and further erosion of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, due to certain provisions in Joe Biden's infrastructure bill which will soon become mandatory. Under the guise of keeping citizens safe by preventing drunk driving, it may amount to ceding the freedom to travel to government control.<h2>H.R.3684 - Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act</h2><h3>Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology&nbsp;</h3>The infrastructure bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">HR. 3684</a>, passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Biden on November 15, 2021, includes a provision for several vehicle monitoring technologies to be installed in cars, which have recently or will soon be required in new vehicles, including technology to determine if a driver is drunk or impaired.&nbsp;The Center for Automotive Research's Eric Paul Dennis <a href="https://www.cargroup.org/a-brief-overview-of-the-light-vehicle-safety-provisions-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reviewed</a> the bill and summarized “key sections.” Dennis, a senior transportation systems analyst, reviewed the section on “Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology” (HR 3684 Section 24220) and explained that Congress gave the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) the role of determining exactly what this section means and how it will be implemented:<blockquote>This provision directs NHTSA to issue a rule to require “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” in new light vehicles.<ul><li>Congress tasked NHTSA with interpreting this law, including establishing the statutory meaning of “impaired.”</li><li>The legislation directs NHTSA to adopt a new safety mandate by 15 November 2024 and begin enforcing it by September 2027 (at the latest) if this is feasible. [Emphasis added.]</li></ul></blockquote><h3>Impaired driving not defined</h3>Others, such as Michael Satterfield, writing as The Gentleman Racer®, were more detailed in their review of the legislation. Satterfield <a href="https://www.thegentlemanracer.com/2022/01/infrastructure-bill-includes-kill.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poured</a> through the 1,039-page infrastructure bill. He agreed that good roads, bridges, and safety are important to automotive enthusiasts, but wrote that he uncovered some concerning legislation "buried deep within HR.3684." The legislation calls not only for changes in crash testing and advanced pedestrian crash standards but also for a "kill switch" to be standard for all new vehicles by 2026.Satterfield explained that all new vehicles will be required to have passive monitoring systems for the driver's behavior and an algorithm will determine if the driver is too impaired to operate the vehicle. If the algorithm decides that the driver is too impaired to operate the car, the program will have some means of taking control of the vehicle. But what constitutes impairment and what the program will actually do was not explained by the legislation, as Satterfield noted:<blockquote>What is not outlined in the bill is what constitutes impairment, outside of the blood alcohol standard, how does the software determine the difference between being tired and being impaired? Passive blood alcohol testing won’t detect impairment from prescription painkillers or other narcotics.&nbsp;The bill also doesn’t outline what happens when a vehicle detects a driver may be impaired other than that the system must “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” which is all well and good in a bar’s parking lot. But what will this system do if an “impairment is detected” while traveling at 75 mph on the highway? [Emphasis added.]</blockquote><h3>Accused by your own car's surveillance system</h3>Satterfield's greatest concern was the question of individual privacy that a vehicle that monitors the driver raises, including who will have access to the data, and other issues such as the right not to self-incriminate under the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment right to face your accuser.&nbsp;He also expressed concern that most drivers will not be aware of the new technology until it affects them in some way:<blockquote>Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the legislation is the lack of detail. The main concerns expressed by many, including former U.S.Rep. Bobb Barr, come down to privacy. Who will have access to the data? How long will it be stored? Will this capability be exploitable by third-party or government agencies to shut down vehicles outside of the function of preventing impaired driving?&nbsp;Privacy concerns and the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser, have already been used to challenge data collection from license plate readers and redlight cameras. Automakers have little choice but to comply with new federal mandates and the majority of consumers will likely be unaware of this new technology until it impacts them in some way. [Emphasis added.]</blockquote><h3>Freedom or control?</h3>John Stossel recently <a href=" https://www.frontpagemag.com/the-kill-switch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">interviewed</a> former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix (video below) about what she believes are the implications of the soon-to-be-implemented impaired driving technology, as reported on FrontPage Magazine.&nbsp;Fix pointed out that the algorithm cannot determine what exactly is happening in the car and with the driver and asks Stossel how much control over his life he is willing to give up:&nbsp;<blockquote>Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life? &nbsp;Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.”</blockquote>California, Fix pointed out, already requires vehicle software to limit excess speed to 10 miles over the limit, legislation about which Frontline News <a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a>.Fix also revealed to Stossel that some companies already collect and sell driver data and proceeded to outline further abuses that could occur as a result of computer surveillance technology such as charging for mileage or monitoring your “carbon footprint” and deciding that you maxed out on your monthly carbon credits so you can't drive anymore till the following month. Or perhaps the car won't start because the software determines you may be on your way to purchase a firearm.<div class="raw-html-embed"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N29AaHnzGGM?si=NFbrmdgVVYm75xvs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</div>&nbsp;<h2>What about hackers?</h2>Can hackers access a vehicle's software and take control of someone's car? This possibility is another worrying aspect of the infrastructure bill, which Frontline News will discuss in an upcoming report.&nbsp;Related articles:&nbsp;<a href="https://frontline.news/post/cars-to-be-programmed-to-limit-speed-if-california-bill-becomes-law">Cars to be programmed to limit speed if California bill becomes law</a>

car tech.jpg

Questions not answered - how can it be sure, what will happen next, and what about your privacy?

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive 

Raisman.jpg

US News

More than 100 claims that DOJ grossly mishandled allegations of sexual assault but aggressively prosecuted J6 trespassers

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim

Rumble refuses UK demand to demonetize influencer over unproven allegations

'We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak'

Related Articles

MrBeast's isolation experiment reveals horror of solitary confinement

American dissident journalist placed on flying watch list

Ireland investigates UFC champion for opposing mass immigration

Pro-life family harassed by FBI sues government for millions

Latest Articles

95 percent of both Republicans & Democrats trust their personal physicians' advice. Should they?

Will hackers be able to stop your car with mandated 'Kill Switch?'

'Kill Switch' to be mandated in cars by 2026 with software deciding if you're too impaired to drive

Taxpayers foot $138.7 million bill for DOJ's failure to stop sexual assaults; hush money silenced victim