1. How are we to interpret stories that reveal that DOGE may have both breached and misused social security data?
Answer: We need to pause for a moment in order to fully understand the term "misuse." In general, when federal authorities are disclosing that personal data has been "misused," it means that false information has been created and aggregated regarding certain groups of American citizens.
So, Social Security recipients, Medicare recipients, SSDI recipients -- these are all people about whom we are hearing that data has been "misused."
I know it's difficult for the public to appropriately analyze certain journalistic forays, but we need to engage with a level of rigor and insight that are not normally taught within educational settings.
This is a historic period in which we need to be very, very concerned anytime we learn that data has been breached and "misused."
2. In other words, you are asserting that, while a data breach may be disclosed, the damage is not retracted.
Answer: That's right. The damage is not removed. It's ongoing.
I think it's interesting to see that the legalities of the need to disclose data breaches are still being followed at this point, both by private companies and by the federal government.
Ultimately, those formal disclosures are likely to disappear, and the laws will be rewritten to accommodate that concealment.
But for now, there's a degree of dialogue about this subject, and the public has an opportunity to engage with its importance.
3. How is the FBI categorizing different groups of Americans at this time?
Answer: By health, age, religion, fitness, disability status, political affiliation, race, ethnicity, dependency on federal benefits, personal orientation, total energy consumption, and more.
4. Are those designations accessible by ordinary Americans who want to know how the FBI is categorizing them?
Answer: No, not at all. Other than the most obvious facts, the FBI's categories, as well as the reason for them, are not available to Americans through the Freedom of Information Act or any other means.
5. You have mentioned previously that the FBI currently appears to be designating all Democrats as Communists. Is that the case?
Answer: This is the allegation, and it seems to be occurring in a very concerning way. Yes.
6. What are the risks for Americans whom the FBI is wrongfully characterizing as Communists at this time?
Answer: The risks are quite high.
7. Is there any way that Americans can correct an incorrect record regarding this issue?
Answer: The FBI is aggregating knowingly false information intentionally. So, the agency is quite disinterested in correcting records that are inaccurate. The entire point is inaccuracy.
8. The objective is to lie.
Answer: Yes, it is.
9. Your point has been that the FBI does not need knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting. Is that correct?
Answer: It is. And further, the architecture of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting is going to be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to deconstruct in the future. The public is wildly ignorant about this issue, and even when you try to explain to educated people the systems that are now expanding, they have great difficulty in comprehending the implications for themselves and their loved ones.
We have never before faced a challenge of this scale in human history, and so our defense against this corruption of federal and local law enforcement is weak, to say the least.
10. How would you attack this problem for the nation, given its severe implications for human rights in the future?
Answer: I would separate short term and long term policy spheres immediately. All programs of knowingly falsified law enforcement reporting need to be sunsetted with specific target dates for concluding them. In the short term, these programs are going to grow, and quite rapidly, much to our detriment. But in the long term, they need to be abolished without exception.
11. Will these programs be ended without someone like you to insist that they cease?
Answer: That's so unlikely as to be almost impossible. And this is for the simple reason that there's a whole economic ecosystem built up around false reporting. There are contractors and AI companies and data centers and cloud computing companies, and all of this translates into significant entrenched interests, all of whom want to see those federal budget appropriations continue.
So, no. We won't have change without someone to insist on it. And ultimately, the public will need to grasp the importance of this issue in a much more direct and compelling way.
12. You keep referencing "long term human rights." What is "long term," in your view?
Answer: Five years plus. We're going to see steep declines in human rights worldwide before that time.
13. And after five years?
Answer: A great deal will depend on our leadership at that juncture. Will there be an opportunity for the government to align with the public interest in the long term? This will depend on the courage and integrity of our public officials when that inflection point arrives.
14. What small steps can members of the public take to defend themselves from false reporting?
Answer: They can make a commitment to speak the truth about themselves and their loved ones, no matter what threats or incentives might appear before them.
This is an issue of character and integrity, but when many people understand its importance, it can make a tremendous difference to the nation as a whole.
15. Does the nation need more ethical practice regarding situations that might arise?
Answer: I think ethical role-playing is an excellent teaching tool.
For example, on one occasion, an acquaintance of mine was offered one million dollars by the FBI if she would, unprovoked, slap me across the face at a public gathering.
So, one question we can ask ourselves is whether we could be persuaded by such a bribe to harm an innocent person.
In this case, the slap was intended to result in a call to the police, which was meant to be followed by my shooting death by a corrupt police officer.
So, the slap was not going to be just a slap. It was going to be misconduct intended to precipitate my wrongful death.
For the record, I did not attend the gathering at which this was meant to occur.
But this is an excellent example of an ethical challenge, and it's one the public can discuss and evaluate for themselves.
16. How would you yourself respond to such a suggestion by the FBI?
Answer: I would never go down that path. I would never seek to harm another person, whether for money or under threat. It's not even a question for me.
17. Is self-defense a different scenario?
Answer: Of course, yes. We have an obligation not to be passive in the face of a predatory attack.
But my point is that the American people should not be harming one another for bribes, under threat, or through any coercive means at all. And that means we should decline to participate in every aspect of providing false witness statements to the FBI and its affiliates. We need to learn to say no to all such demands.
18. What is your view concerning the FBI's ongoing participation in human trafficking within the United States?
Answer: This needs to be halted both short term and long term. So this is one area of policy overlap, and it constitutes a fundamental on which both left and right can agree.
The human trafficking of America's youth cannot be treated as a job perq by the FBI.
19. What would the American public feel about the FBI's close involvement in the human trafficking of America's youth over the course of decades?
Answer: Outrage. The public would feel righteous indignation. Nothing less. And I can attest to that firsthand.
20. Will you please keep in close communication with us regarding your family members' wellbeing and your own?
Answer: Most certainly.
21. Thank you for speaking with us this afternoon.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
No comments:
Post a Comment