An Australian primary school predicted “microchips in student’s brains” within 10 years before subsequently deleting the newsletter that contained the creepy prophecy.
In a recent newsletter, Preston West, a primary school in Australia, mentioned that they imagine children having microchips in their brains in the next ten years.
In the Principal’s Note, Cheryl Bondeson, head of the school wrote:
In 10 years we imagine education Preston West Primary will: • Have more buildings and development. • Technological advances for teachers and students. Far more learning will be on a screen. • Microchips in students brains to promote intelligence and memory. • More mental health awareness and different styles for learning
Subsequently all the newsletters have been deleted from the school’s website. proof it was originally posted can be seen via the Google search cache below.
Australian federal police have announced they are using next-generation DNA sequencing technology to predict the physical appearance of potential suspects.
Based on DNA left at a crime scene, the technology – also known as massively parallel sequencing – can predict externally visible characteristics of a person even in the absence of matching profiles in police databases.
MPS can “predict gender, biogeographical ancestry, eye colour and, in coming months, hair colour”, according to the AFP.
Experts say the technology is a “gamechanger” for forensic science but also raises issues around racial profiling, heightened surveillance and genetic privacy.
DNA forensics used to rely on a system that matched samples to ones in a criminal DNA database, and did not reveal much beyond identity. However, predictive DNA forensics can reveal things like physical appearance, biological sex and ancestry – regardless of whether people are in a database or not.
What is massive parallel sequencing?
MPS has been used commercially for more than a decade and has been used overseas in forensic cases.
Linacre describes it as a “massive gamechanger”. The technology is capable of sequencing “tens of millions of bits of DNA in one go”, he said. “This new methodology is telling you things about the person … externally visible characteristics.”
How will next-gen DNA sequencing be used in Australia?
The new sequencing technology will allow investigators to gain information about the physical characteristics of a potential suspect even when there is no matching DNA profile on a law enforcement database. The AFP plans to predict biological sex, “biogeographical ancestry”, eye colour and, in coming months, hair colour. Over the next decade they aim to include traits such as age, body mass index, and height, and even finer predictions for facial metrics such as distance between the eyes, eye, nose and ear shape, lip fullness, and cheek structure.
Pushing the Ethical boundaries?
The highly sensitive nature of DNA data, and the difficulty in ever making it anonymous creates significant privacy concerns. According to a 2020 government survey about public attitudes to privacy, most Australians are uncomfortable with the idea of their DNA data being collected.
Using DNA for forensics may also reduce public trust in the use of genomics for medical and other purposes. It will be important to set clear boundaries around what can and can’t be predicted in these tests – and when and how they will be used. Despite some progress toward a privacy impact assessment, Australian forensic legislation does not currently provide any form of comprehensive regulation of forensic DNA phenotyping.
Mass surveillance and State sponsored/directed spying and tracking of citizens scored another victory recently in the summer of 2021. The Australian government passed a massive Surveillance bill (in less than 24 hours) that not only grants them the power to monitor it’s citizens online activity, but to also actively intervene,interrupt (Hack) and modify (Frame?) online accounts and data. It comes as no surprise to those who’ve been paying attention to Australia’s slide toward technocratic Authoritarianism. Australia (much like it’s Five eye’s intelligence partners)has had for many years a developing Mass surveillance infrastructure.
In the lead up to this,in 2018 Australia passed the TOLA act,which allowed Law enforcement and Intelligence agencies the ability to(Read:Coerce) “compel communications providers to provide assistance in accessing content as well as extensions to warrant-based collection powers.” The act also gave the power to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO),to grant immunity from prosecution any provider/entity that would provide assistance.
Data disruption warrant: gives the police the ability to “disrupt data” by modifying, copying, adding, or deleting it. While it’s called a warrant, there is an emergency authorization process for cases when it is “not practicable” to get a warrant. So a data disruption “warrant” can be issued under something referred to as an emergency authorization,which means that Australia now has a warrant less surveillance regime on the books.
A Network activity warrant: Which allows the police to collect intelligence from devices or networks that are used, or likely to be used, by those subject to the warrant. This “warrant” power allows access to networks where there is suspicion of serious online offenses,although what qualifies as “serious” has a variety of definitions in the legislation. The definitions are purposely vague so as to allow broad interpretation,which would enable widespread surveillance across social media and messaging platforms.
An Account takeover warrant: allows the police to take control of an online account (e.g. social media) for the purposes of gathering information for an investigation. This power also allows for the ability to lock the account holder out. This can be done covertly and without consent, so the individual wouldn’t necessarily know what is going on until or if they are ever charged.The warrant is applicable for a maximum of 90 days (though extensions are possible) — so that is the length of time a law enforcement officer can impersonate you or use your accounts to monitor your activity and gather information.
Even with all the broad spying powers introduced by this bill, There was at least one “recommendation” for public advocacy & introducing a public interest advocate into this process. A public interest candidate is someone who would argue on behalf of the affected individual in the room where as now only a police officer and a judge get to play judge and jury. But As it stands, the Australian government remains uninterested in allowing individuals to defend their rights: there is no one to argue on your behalf, and there is never any notification to the individual (even after the fact) so you will never know if you were subject to any of these powers.
Being that the bill was passed with little opposition,and rushed through the legislature with all parties in lockstep with the surveillance agenda. Australia’s government has shown it’s contempt for it’s citizens privacy in order to accrue more powers for “fighting online crime”. Continuing the global trend (Since 2001) of developed nations curtailing citizens civil liberties,in the name of “national security”.
Surveilling Citizen’s protests – Equal opportunity across the board