There is a fundamental question we will be asking everyone who opposes vaccine passports.
How is it that a person can oppose a vaccine passport which is proposed to
allow a person to enter a place to eat, a sporting event, a movie theatre, fly commercially, or other such event
but that person does not oppose a Real ID compliant license which is proposed to
limit one's ability to buy, sell, bank, enter a federal building, travel (fly and drive) and work?
Both the Real ID and the Vaccine Passport are slated to become digital/mobile IDs.
Real ID literally will be needed to buy, sell, bank, travel (fly and drive) and work. As former Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff said - there are an unlimited number of things Real ID can be required for. California had legislation that would require a Real ID compliant license to purchase a firearm or ammunition. The bill was not passed because too many states were not compliant yet.
Both mobile/digital Real ID licenses and digital/mobile vaccine passports are based on mandatory biometric enrollment. Right now the app needed for a digital vaccine passport requires a self facial recognition authentication just a a mobile/digital Real ID drivers' license requires a self facial recognition authentication. For those that believe they have a non-Real ID compliant drivers' license, they are being fooled. The goal of Real ID was to acquire the high resolution digital facial capture/photograph. Both non-compliant Real ID drivers' licenses and compliant licenses have the high resolution digital facial capture/photograph specifically for use with FRT (Facial Recognition Technology).
It was always about mandatory biometric enrollment, control, and the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance and other purposes. For those that do not know - the Chinese have developed a 500 mega pixel camera that is able to capture fingerprints from a long distance. Facial Recognition is the preferred biometric because there are too many people who have worn off their fingerprints or simply do not have defined enough ridges for fingerprinting. Also, the use of FRT does not require the knowledge or consent of individuals.
If there is any doubt how invested our federal government is in the use of FRT, the GAO (General Accounting Office) just released a report that breaks down the use of FRT now by agencies and departments of the federal government. The report also provides how each agency/department will increase their use of FRT through 2023. Although there are legitimate concerns about the accuracy of FRT, the federal government is not deterred in using the technology. The fact is with Artificial Intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars a year globally going towards Research and Development, the accuracy issue will eventually be a moot point.
Mobile/Digital ID is a surveillance tool. Your smart phone itself is a surveillance tool. Until the courts address the issue of surveillance as it applies to the use of FRT, we are essentially living in the Old West wild frontier where anything goes.
The Constitutional Alliance has stated previously that we are not opposed to the use of FRT in all circumstances. In those cases where a crime is caught on a video feed, law enforcement should acquire a John or Jane Doe warrant to identify the perpetrators of the crime(s). In the cases of a missing person, a family member or legal guardian can give permission for FRT to be used. Correctional facilities would not be barred from using FRT. The Constitutional Alliance's objection for nearly 20 years has been mandatory biometric enrollment and FRT surveillance without warrants.
Please share this article with everyone you are in contact with and ask those people/groups to do the same.
Please become a sponsor/donor/insider of the Constitutional Alliance. The Constitutional Alliance is fighting everyday in legislatures, Congress, or courts to protect your rights. A free society and a surveillance state cannot be reconciled.
© Copyright 2021 by Constitutional Alliance.