Sweden: One Road to World-Wide Biometric I. D. Tracking, Pt. 3

posted by Dr. Jael Ever @ 16:57 PM
March 22, 2012

 Because Switzerland is more obviously connected to Hitler’s hidden treasurers, and provides secret banking for the wealthy to avoid taxes, it would not be ideal to establish financially controlling biometric systems.  But its geographically, economically and politically close neighbor, Sweden, is ideal.

 However, because of expected push-back from citizens in Western nations who would want to protect their privacy, as well as their finances, Sweden’s international biometrics systems would have to be installed quietly.
 Certainly, the European Union only “recommended” these newfangled computerized identity systems.  They are not “up front” EU laws or orders.  According to “www.securitydocumentworld.com,”  “To date there is no regulation at EU level mandating the introduction of biometric data in identity documents.”

 However, since Sweden’s new technology complies with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the U.S. Visa Waiver Programme (VWP) requirements, European nations and the United States move ever closer to universal biometric identification requirements.
 The cite “Statewatch: Monitoring the State and Civil Liberties in Europe”––an organization comprised of lawyers, academics, journalists, scholars, etc.–– publishes predicted results of such synthesized identity records.
 In “Comparative Study: On the 2011 draft Agreement between the United States of  America and the European Union on the Use and Transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR) to the United States  Department of Homeland Security”––  released just this week––Dr. Gerrit Hornung, and Dr. Franziska Boehm catalog the group’s objections to these shared “Passenger Name Records” (PNR) records.

 Those objections include: 1) “PNR data can be used for other purposes not related to terrorist or related crimes;” 2) “The indefinite retention period (in particular for data of unsuspected individuals . . .) is . . .not in line with European data protection standards;” 3) Transfer of information to third parties is much too broad;” 4) “There is no truly independent authority and indeed no mandatory oversight from outside the DHS at all;” 5) “Amount of data sets has not been reduced;” 6) “Data subject’s rights and judicial review still not enforceable; 7) “(T)he rights of individuals (access, correction, rectification, compensation) are far from being comparable to . . . data protection directive[s].”

 The United States and Europe now march toward shared biometric data, as are India and other nations––all leading to world-wide population controls.  Such control is not for protection.  Historical Bible books say it is the mark of Satan:  “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark. . . (Revelation 13: 11 – 18).”

Did you like this? Share it:


Comments are closed.