TV Spies on Viewers

Leave a comment

I found this link on The Free Zone..(you can find TFZ on our blogroll).  Skip over there and take a look at the work Gary Rea has compiled on why you should ditch your TV.  While you are it…..order one of those t-shirts!  


TV Spies on Viewers



Ground-breaking legislation in California is fighting Microsoft and AOL to stop them creating the machine George Orwell foresaw – the TV set that watches you.

At the same time, a new book titled Spy TV exposes the methods by which digital interactive television will observe and experiment of viewers. It describes how neural network software will be used to create “psychographic profiles” and then “modify the behavior” of individuals.

This year broadcasters will celebrate interactive TV in public, using words like “convenience” and “empowerment”. AOL TV is rolling out with the TiVo personal video recorder (PVR), that helps viewers find and save programs they might like. Microsoft is launching its own PVR called Ultimate TV, claiming “It puts you in control!”. But while you may be sold on home shopping and chat, broadcasters have been selling advertisers their new power to monitor everything you do with your remote.

At industry conferences on interactive TV, Microsoft has been handing out specifications of its new platform. Their Microsoft TV Server, for instance, enables “optimizes revenue opportunities by providing rich personalization and targeting of content and ads to consumers based on their television viewing and Web surfing histories and preferences.”

Matthew Timms, of Two Way TV in London, describes this surveillance in the home in plain English:

“..Somehow they feel they’re sitting there – it’s just them and the television – even though the reality is it’s got a wire leading straight back to somebody’s computer.”

Now in bookstores, Spy TV is the backbone of an effort by White Dot, the anti-television campaign, to educate the public about this invasive technology. Finally his paying customers will get to hear Phil Swain of Cable and Wireless describe the huge amounts of data he will gather:

“Changing channels, selecting certain programs, viewing habits, browsing through interactive sites, purchasing habits, all that kind of stuff we can track. Every click, we can track. We will be recording that information.”

In another recent development, Motorola Broadband, ACTV and OpenTV have announced investment in a subsidy called SpotOn, designed to create profiles of over 7 million viewers, without their knowledge. ACTV looks forward to delivering commercials based on “the specific profile of an individual household, which is generated by ACTV’s software within the digital set-top in the home.”

SpotOn’s head of Sales in Dever, Bob Evans is proud of what he sells advertisers:

“That (set-top) box can hold 64,000 bits of information about you!”

Read full article here:


Top Ten Reasons to Reject Dangerous ID (the so-called Real ID) Act of 2005






Excerpted from the article:

And the #1 Reason why the states should REJECT Dangerous ID is therefore…

1.The Dangerous ID Act makes your State Issued Driver’s License a National ID Card!
The Dangerous ID Act is a bad law passed under false pretenses. It was rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was buried in a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq. The Senate didn’t want it, and the American people don’t want it either. But the majority leadership in Congress imposed it on us, and so now we have to fight to preserve our state’s and citizens’ constitutional rights by rejecting it.

2. Dangerous ID is Void on its face!
Because Congress has exceeded its lawful authority in attempting to place a mandate upon the states which it has no constitutional authority to mandate, and because it has passed a law without the constitutional power or authority to do so, the Dangerous ID Act, on its very face, is entirely VOID and of no effect. The Supreme Court has ruled that: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16th American Jurisprudence 2d Session 177 late 2nd, Section 25 
 (end excerpt)

Read full article here:



%d bloggers like this: