Remote viewing as stalking

This sunday, in the UK, stalking is to be made a criminal offence. Previously, the act of stalking has lead to unambiguous criminal offences such as breaking and entering, assault and so on, but now the actual stalking element itself is now a separate crime. Apparently, this will also involve internet-related activities, although, I should imagine, this would be more difficult to assess.

It got me thinking about remote viewing and, side-stepping arguments as to the reality of remote viewing aside, the moral implications of it. Traditionally, most people have heard about the 'cold war' aspect of it, where it's used for military intelligence purposes and similar. However, how does this kind of activity relate to more 'domestic' matters? You can argue that military utilisations are *cough* good for national security and normal 'moral's and 'ethics' don't really apply.

But what about remote viewing on civilians or people who aren't really intelligence targets? Is this any different than climbing someone's garden wall and peeping through windows (with even less chance of getting caught)?

Also, is anyone honest enough here to admit that, given that it would be difficult to 'backtrace' (even for Jessie Slaughter's father), they'd be stalking people like crazy if they had the ability?

I'd be more concerned about the dozen or so cameras in every home that could be hacked and accessed without your knowledge.

XBOX Kinect, PS3, laptop cameras, cellphone cameras, digi cameras with internet ability, E-readers with camera & internet, and that's usually for just 1 person in the household. Not to mention what's probably inside some of these cable boxes and LCD/LED TVs.

They've set up an electronic Big Brother network all around us, and with our consent and financing. Remote viewer peepers are least of my worries right now.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


I wouldn't worry about it, if anyone was trying to spy then they would be found out very fast, and very easily. No company would risk that, even if they had a reason to spy on millions upon millions of people. It would ruin them.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
I'd be more concerned about the dozen or so cameras in every home that could be hacked and accessed without your knowledge.

XBOX Kinect, PS3, laptop cameras, cellphone cameras, digi cameras with internet ability, E-readers with camera & internet, and that's usually for just 1 person in the household. Not to mention what's probably inside some of these cable boxes and LCD/LED TVs.

I've no XBOX Kinect, PS3, laptop camera, digi camera with internet ability, E-readers with camera & internet or cable box and LCD/LED TV. I do have a mobile phone with camera, but my phone has no real internet capability. I also have a Wii, but it's not connected to the internet.

They've set up an electronic Big Brother network all around us, and with our consent and financing. Remote viewer peepers are least of my worries right now.

A few years ago on here, there was a trend ridiculing Britain as a CCTV police state, mainly from Americas. I used to explain that the vast majority of the CCTV in Britain wasn't 'state' related but rather due to commercial, business reasons: privately owned shopping centres, housing estates that were no longer state owned, inside shops, open areas that are often thought of as 'public concourse' but have actually been sold off to commercial interests without the public knowing (which is happening at a frightening rate here) and so on.

What you say above, actually helps to reinforce my view: our fears shouldn't be about government, it should be about capitalist Big Business.

sorry guys but in my opinion this new law is for you, me and people like us. 'They' will still do what they want as always... This law shall protect John from spying on Mary but not the government spying on us.
I'm afraid it will even give them more power as they can use this law in case somebody is observing what "they" are doing... if you know what I mean.

reply to post by SpearMint


Comcast and XBOX Live Agreement basically tells you that they can access any media, like cameras, without notice and for whatever purpose they choose.

In an interview with NewTeeVee’s Chris Albrecht, Gerard Kunkle, Comcast’s VP of user experience, mentioned a camera device that would identify the viewer and serve up programming and advertisements tailored to the individual.

Source

According to a June 7 patent application, Microsoft is looking to help advertisers target their promotions based on your emotions ... and they want to use the Kinect camera — among other methods — to detect your mood.

Source

reply to post by JibbyJedi


It doesn't matter what you've agreed to, if it was found out that they were spying on you it could ruin them.

reply to post by SpearMint


98% of the corporate corruption does not get aired on the news.
The 2% that does get aired is because they are trying to hurt the individuals involved for whatever business reasons apply at the time.

Usually when they use smooth terms to describe what they are doing, the public doesn't blink an eye. They can say, "We are better tailoring your media experience by enhancing exclusive features customized to your specific desires...."

In other words, "We can and will watch and listen to you in your homes at any given time, we will use that information to customize your viewing experience, and are storing and selling that information to 3rd party advertisers and/or gov't agencies if deemed necessary by law."

Keep it simple and no worries, have a cellphone without a camera, enjoy XBOX without LIVE, tape your laptop camera, and don't do anything illegal in front of your televisions.

I guess, you could remote view stalk someone.... But remote viewing takes up a lot of time to get a small piece of information, and it's not like you see it in your head. It's a really strange art, involving scribbles, and quick intuitive bits of information that you later have to decode. I've tried it, I thought it was going to be something way cooler than it is, but it's just too much work and even then until you're good at it, you're probably not going to be able to stalk people with it ha ha.

I have been reluctantly forced to concede, both by dint of personal experience and reliable second-hand accounts, that remote viewing is possible. In addition, it may have been employed by intelligence agencies for surveillance purposes, before more... er... reliable technology rendered such programs obsolete.

(I say, "may have been": that such programs did exist is a certainty, but it seems likely that the "research" was just a smokescreen for other, even more dubious, goals.)

Looking at current iterations of RV surveillance is a short-cut to a good chuckle:

Due to the nature of the remote viewing process, we cannot provide clients with numbers and names.

Remote Viewing data can produce specifics on regions, nearest identifiable aspects of a locale,
and any data relating to visual and intangible aspects of a target person, place, or thing.

All our Remote Viewers viewers are required to be at least 95% accurate.

When independent data is corroborated with the data from other viewers, a near 100% accuracy
level is achieved.

This does not mean that our clients always like the data. Data from the Matrix is not biased or subjective.

Often the data is surprising. But regardless, it is accurate, and it is up to the client whether that
information is to be utilized or not.

www.remoteviewers.eu...

Seems like there are cheaper and more efficient ways to catch a cheating spouse.

And for all the pervs out there with an overactive third-eye: please stop peeping me while I pee. KTHX.