Iata ca dupa ce a trecut ca prin branza in Parlamentul Romaniei o lege anti-democratica, indreptata impotriva libertatilor fundamentale ale omului, cum este Legea 298/2008, a trebuit sa se ridice un ziar in apararea cetatenilor tarii. Aceasta pare sa fie ultima speranta a romanilor, dupa Biserica: o presa cu adevarat libera, care sa dea la cap ticalosilor reprezentanti ai clasei politice tradatoare a intereselor nationale, aflati mana in mana cu beneficiarii afacerii interceptarilor, unde zangane euro pe euro de vreo cateva zeci, ba poate chiar sute de milioane de ori. ZIUA in schimb s-a ridicat ferm si a solicitat institutiei care apara drepturile fundamentale ale romanilor – Avocatului Poporului – sa sesizeze Curtea Constitutionala cu privire la abuzurile din Legea 298/2008. Ca – noi cel putin, noi, ziaristii – suntem inregistrati de ani de zile ca potentiali “dusmani ai poporului”, de fapt ai regimurilor, nu mai este o noutate pentru nici un jurnalist informat. Am stat la discutii private cu generali din serviciile de informatii ale tarii care, putin jenati, ma rugau sa ne scoatem bateriile telefoanelor inainte de a incepe sa vorbim desi subiectul era tocmai apararea Romaniei. Sau poate tocmai de aceea. De data aceasta, serviciile, care ameninta sa treaca de la apararea tarii la atacarea cetatenilor ei, prin acceptarea unor cerinte dictatoriale mondiale, ne vor inregistra total, legal. Pericolul reliefat si de plangerea ZIUA este faptul ca din lege lipseste orice metoda de control asupra operatiunii interceptarilor, ceea ce poate duce foarte usor la abuzuri de tip politie politica. Noi stim – si scandalul Claudiu Saftoiu a relevat pentru a doua oara – ca SRI are protocoale secrete incheiate cu operatorii de telefonie fixa si mobila. Apoi, via SRI, informatiile ajung si la SIE, de unde s-au si sifonat in public pe gurita lui Claudiu Saftoiu. Acum, ca se pune de o noua afacere, cine se va ocupa de noile achizitii, fonduri de zeci de milioane de euro care ne arata, iata, ca pentru instalarea unei posibile dictaturi a sistemului, criza economica mondiala si nationala pare sa nu existe. Dimpotriva. La fel, aceeasi afacere, banoasa si anti-constitutionala, si in cazul pasapoartelor biometrice, un scandal care irumpe cu aceeasi nervozitate ca si cel al Legii 298 anti-cetatean. Desi la nivelul Uniunii Europene exista destule nelamuriri privind necesitatea si legalitatea unui astfel de demers, Romania e prima dintre proastele satului european care adopta, fara nici o dezbatere nationala, aceasta masura. Practic, toti romanii vor fi indosariati electronic prin documentele de identitate – pasapoarte, buletine, permise de conducere -, acte biometrice unde vor fi inserate amprentele digitale si oculare ca si fotograma faciala si alte date medicale, toate stocate intr-un micro-cip “invizibil”. Decizia contravine insa unui Raport foarte documentat al Grupului European pentru Etica in Stiinta si Noi Tehnologii al Comisiei Europene (EGE) – disponibil la https://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf – si care trateaza problematica biocipului implantabil si, principial, al celui introdus in actele de identitate. Grupul, format din profesori de renume mondial, afirma, la fel ca ZIUA in cazul Legii anti-cetatean, ca se incalca drepturi fundamentale ale omului. Analistii Comisiei Europene au edificat probleme etice ale dreptului la viata privata, autonomie si confidentialitate aratand ca acest cip biometric restrange libertatile individuale si va face cetatenii dependenti de mecanisme decizionale statale sau mondiale care nu sunt transparente si nici de inteles. Dezbaterea publica este absolut esentiala pentru a se asigura transparenta si statele membre ale UE au responsabilitatea sa asigure ca acceptarea acestor “beneficii” ale tehnicii sunt decise numai printr-un proces democratic, afirma EGE. Daca in cazul Legii 298/2008 putem vorbi de simulacrul unui proces democratic, cum explica autoritatile introducerea unor masuri care sfideaza Articolului 23 din Constitutia tarii – “Libertatea individuala si siguranta persoanei sunt inviolabile” si Articolul 29 – “Libertatea gandirii si a opiniilor, precum si libertatea credintelor religioase nu pot fi ingradite sub nici o forma”. ZIUA a demonstrat cum se poate impotrivi violarii drepturilor nostre. Un exemplu demn de urmat… ZIUA: Pasi fatali spre o dictatura absoluta de Victor RONCEA …alaturi de cele pe care le stim prea bine!
Grupul Areopag a organizat pe 27 ianuarie 2009 o conferinta publica la Sala Dalles, pe tema cipurilor biometrice si a semnelor vremii, transmisa in direct la https://www.ortodoxradio.ro/. Desfasurata sub titlul „Sfarsitul Lumii – Intre profetii si obsesii”, desi trebuia sa dureze doar doua ore, conferinta a tinut patru ore in fata unei sali arhipline, de sute si sute de persoane, care, la sfarsitul manifestarii au semnat Scrisoarea Areopag catre Sfantul Sinod si formularele impotriva Pasapoartelor biometrice. Au vorbit: Maica Ecaterina, cu mult curaj si daruire, P Ieromonah Ioan Sismanian de la Petru Voda, cu iubire, insufland credinta si tarie, si teologii Danion Vasile si Laurentiu Dumitru, cu mult duh si intelepciune. In timpul Conferintei a fost sunat si Parintele Iustin Parvu care a reconfirmat in direct Apelul sau la mucenicie, de impotrivire la semnele premergatoare pecetluirii finale, realizate prin introducerea obligatorie – fara dezbatere publica – a cipului biomtetric in toate actele de identitate ale romanilor. Dupa prelegeri au fost lansate lucrarile lui Danion Vasile „Stareţii despre vremurile din urmă” şi „Zorii Apocalipsei” cat si cele mai noi aparitii ale revistelor Presa Ortodoxa si ATITUDINI, care s-au raspandit printre credinciosi ca painea calda. In final s-a anuntat mitingul de duminica al Coalitiei Impotriva Statului Politienesc, care se va sustine la Crucea de la poalele Dealului Patriarhiei, incepand cu orele 12.30. In curand aici si doua filmari din timpul conferintei: interventia telefonica a Parintelui Iustin si Cantecul si Rugaciunea de inchidere a manifestarii.
Marti, Ora 18.00, Grupul Areopag organizeaza o conferinta publica la Sala Dalles, langa Libraria Noi, pe tema cipurilor biometrice si a semnelor vremii. Vor vorbi: ieromonah Ioan Sismanian, Maica Ecaterina si teologii Danion Vasile si Laurentiu Dumitru.
Totodata, ieri s-a dat publicitaii urmatorul Comunicat:
Coalitia Impotriva Statului Politienesc anunta doua actiuni stradale de protest fata de incercarea de restrangere a drepturilor inalienabile ale cetatenilor romani prin introducerea documentelor de identitate cu cip biometric si instaurarea controlului total al mijloacelor de comunicare electronice.
Prima demonstratie va avea loc duminica, 1 Februarie 2009, intre orele 12.30 si 14.30, in Bucuresti, la Crucea de la poalele Dealului Patriarhiei, in Piata Unirii. A doua manifestatie de protest va avea loc in ziua de miercuri, 4 Februarie 2009, intre orele 12.30 si 14.30, in Bucuresti, Piata Victoriei, in fata sediului Guvernului Romaniei.
Coalitia Impotriva Statului Politienesc este o organizatie fara personalitate juridica, deschisa tuturor persoanelor si asociatiilor dispuse sa apere Constitutia tarii si drepturile fundamentale ale cetatenilor romani, formata in prezent din mai multe organizatii civice, printre care: Asociatia Adevar si Dreptate, Asociatia Civic Media, Asociatia Pentru Apararea Drepturilor Apatrizilor si Refugiatilor (APADAR), Grupul Independent pentru Democratie (GID), s.a.
Campaniile Coalitiei Impotriva Statului Politienesc vizeaza desfiintarea masurilor adoptate de stat pentru Controlul Total al populatiei, respectiv: 1) Obligativitatea introducerii cipurilor biometrice in toate documentele de identitate – prin Hotararea de Guvern nr. 1566/15.12.2008 – contrar Articolului 23 din Constitutia tarii – Libertatea individuala si siguranta persoanei sunt inviolabile – respectiv a Articolului 29 – Libertatea gandirii si a opiniilor, precum si libertatea credintelor religioase nu pot fi ingradite sub nici o forma; si 2) Legea privind inregistrarea si inmagazinarea tuturor comunicatiilor electronice personale ale cetatentilor Romaniei – Nr. 298/2008 – contrar Articolului 26 din Constitutia tarii – care obliga autoritatile publice sa respecte si sa ocroteasca “viata intima, familiala si privata”; a Articolului 28 – Secretul scrisorilor, al telegramelor, al altor trimiteri postale, al convorbirilor telefonice si al celorlalte mijloace legale de comunicare este inviolabil; si a Articolului 53 – care prevede ca “restrangerea exercitiului unor drepturi sau al unor libertati poate fi dispusa numai daca este necesara intr-o societate democratica. Masura trebuie sa fie proportionala cu situatia care a determinat-o, sa fie aplicata in mod nediscriminatoriu si fara a aduce atingere existentei dreptului sau a libertatii”.
Coalitia Impotriva Statului Politienesc este fidela Apelului Parintelui Justin Parvu – “Luptati pana la capat! Nu va temeti!” – si este bazata pe reactia categorica si imediata a cetatenilor informati ai Romaniei, exprimata prin semnaturile la Petitia “Impotriva cipurilor cu date biometrice premergatoare pecetluirii cu numarul Fiarei, 666” https://www.petitiononline.com/NU666/petition.html – peste 10.000 de semnatari – si la “Petiţia impotriva (si pentru abolirea) legii nr. 298/2008 (privind retinerea datelor generate sau prelucrate de furnizorii de servicii de comunicatii electronice destinate publicului sau de retele publice de comunicatii…) https://www.petitieonline.ro/petitie-p37662052.html – peste 15.000 de semnatari, ambele in crestere vertiginoasa.
Coalitia Impotriva Statului Politienesc saluta initiativa ziarului ZIUA de a contesta la Curtea Constitutionala, prin Avocatul Poporului, Legea 298/2008 si reafirma ca va actiona de asemenea pentru desfiintarea acestor acte anti-constitutionale si pentru protectia drepturilor cetatenilor romani in fata abuzurilor statului. Asteptam sprijinul si participarea tuturor organizatiilor si persoanelor care doresc sa se implice in acest demers civic.
Cipurile RFID, introduse in actele de identitate ale romanilor fara nici o dezbatere publica, comporta riscuri care ar trebui sa intre in atentia Ministerului Sanatatii si a cadrelor medicale din Romania. Iata: REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON ETHICAL AND JUDICIAL AFFAIRS* CEJA Report 5-A-07
Subject: Radio Frequency ID Devices in Humans Presented by: Robert M. Sade, MD, Chair Referred to: Reference Committee on Amendments to Constitution and Bylaws (Richert E. Quinn, Jr., MD, Chair)
INTRODUCTION
Radio frequency identification (RFID) tags are computer chips connected to miniature antennae that can be used to transmit information electronically via a proximate RFID reader. The use of these devices in health care represents another promising development in information technology, but also raises important ethical, legal and social issues. Specifically, the use of RFID labeling in humans for medical purposes may improve patient safety, but also may pose some physical risks, compromise patient privacy, or present other social hazards.
This report responds to Resolution 6 (A-06), “RFID Labeling in Humans,” which called for study of the medical and ethical implications of RFID chips in humans. This report focuses on ethical issues in the use of RFID chips, specifically in regard to their implantation for clinical purposes.
BACKGROUND
Radio frequency identification devices utilize wireless technology to communicate data via signals in the radio frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Data are stored in a microchip attached to an antenna, and packaged so that they can be attached to or embedded in products, animals, or people.
The two main types of RFID tags are passive and active. Passive tags contain no internal power supply. They convert the radio frequency energy emitted from a reader device into signals that transmit stored data for a distance of a few feet. These passive devices currently have restricted amounts of data storage and are of limited functionality, because the information they contain cannot be modified.
In comparison, active RFID tags contain an internal battery, which provides increased reliability, longer transmission ranges, on-tag data processing and greater data storage.[1] While their capacity to process data internally allows for expanded capabilities in the future, their greater transmission range presents a more substantial threat to data confidentiality and patients’ privacy. In October 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first RFID tags specifically intended for human implantation.[2] Approved RFID devices are currently limited to passive units, intended for identifying patients. Active RFID chips may be approved in the future.
Human-implanted passive RFID devices that identify patients may also contain essential biometric and medical information. The tags are primarily intended for patients with chronic diseases, such as coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, stroke or seizure disorder, or are implanted into patients with medical devices such as pacemakers, stents, or joint replacements. These devices are approximately the size of a grain of rice, and are implanted under the skin via a hypodermic-type needle in less than one minute.[3]
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
RFID tags may promote the timely identification of patients and expedite access to their medical information. As a result, these devices can improve the continuity and coordination of care with resulting reduction in adverse drug events and other medical errors.[4]
RFID tags also may improve efficiency within the health care system. In conjunction with improved medical record management, these devices may facilitate access to patient records, medication lists, and diagnostic tests.[5] To be maximally effective, however, the information in these devices must be adequately integrated into present clinical information and communications systems, laboratory databases, and pharmacy systems.1
Appropriate processes also must be developed to inscribe, read and archive data stored on RFID tags. As new designs enter the marketplace, the emergence of competing standards may present problems for hospital staff if a patient’s ID tag proves incompatible with the interrogation devices employed by the hospital.1
Physical risks to patients
These devices may present physical risks to the patient. Though they are removable, their small size allows them to migrate under the skin, making them potentially difficult to extract. However, this tendency may be minimized by constructing RFID tags from materials that permit surrounding tissue to encase the device. In addition, RFID tags may cause electromagnetic interference, which may interfere with electrosurgical devices and defibrillators.1 Finally, it has not been determined whether RFID tags might affect the efficacy of pharmaceuticals.1,[6]
PATIENT PRIVACY AND SECURITY
The primary concerns surrounding human RFID labeling pertain to their potential impact on patient privacy and security. Physicians must assure patients that their medical information will be held in confidence (see Opinion E-5.05, “Confidentiality”). Moreover, maintenance of privacy is required to protect patients from embarrassment, potential social discrimination, loss of health care coverage, or other detrimental consequences (see Opinion E-5.059, “Privacy in the Context of Health Care”).
At this time, the security of RFID devices has not been fully established. Physicians, therefore, cannot assure patients that the personal information contained on RFID tags will be appropriately protected. In light of these security concerns, the FDA currently requires RFID transponders to store only a unique electronic identification code to be read by the scanner.2 This identification code can then be used to access patient identity and corresponding health information stored in a database.
To protect confidentiality and privacy, the medical community should advocate for the adoption of other protections, such as computer encryption or digital signatures. Ultimately, the medical community should undertake appropriate efforts to prevent unauthorized access to patients’ information contained on RFID tags (see also E-5.07, “Confidentiality: Computers,” AMA Policy Database).
INFORMED CONSENT
To properly respect patient autonomy, RFID tags should not be implanted or removed without the prior consent of patients or their surrogates (see E-8.08, “Informed Consent,” and E-8.081, “Surrogate Decision Making”). During the consent process, decision-makers should be informed of the potential risks and benefits associated with RFID tags, including the many uncertainties regarding their efficacy. Patients are also entitled to know who will be granted access to the data contained on RFID tags and the purposes for which this information will be used.[7]
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It seems likely that utilization of RFID devices for medical purposes will expand.4 The medical profession must continue to monitor the efficacy of these devices. If RFID tags are proven to benefit patient care significantly, the profession should advocate for widespread adoption of RFID technology, and for policies that make RFID tags available to all patients who would benefit (see Opinion E-2.095, “The Provision of Adequate Health Care”).
However, if objective evidence demonstrates negative consequences that outweigh the benefits in relation to health care, the medical profession will bear an important responsibility to oppose the use of RFID labeling in humans.
Finally, physicians should be aware of emerging non-medical applications of human-implantable RFID devices. For instance, active RFID technologies might be considered for the tracking or surveillance of individuals who pose a threat to others. Although this is only one of many possible uses of RFID technology in the future, it alerts the medical profession to the need for continuous assessment of the appropriate role of physicians participating in RFID labeling of human beings. Indeed, certain uses could constitute an infringement upon patients’ individual liberties, placing physicians in a position to act as patient advocates by promoting the use of other, less intrusive alternatives, when available.4
CONCLUSION
RFID technology has the potential to improve patient care as well as patient safety. However, the safety and efficacy of human-implantable RFID devices has yet to be established. Therefore, the medical community should support further investigations to obtain the data necessary to make informed medical decisions regarding the use of these devices. The medical community should also be sensitive to potential social consequences of RFID devices, such as non-medical applications in law enforcement.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs recommends that the following be adopted and the remainder of the report be filed.
Radio frequency identification (RFID) devices may help to identify patients, thereby improving the safety and efficiency of patient care, and may be used to enable secure access to patient clinical information. However, their efficacy and security have not been established. Therefore, physicians implanting such devices should take certain precautions:
(1) The informed consent process must include disclosure of medical uncertainties associated with these devices.
(2) Physicians should strive to protect patients’ privacy by storing confidential information only on RFID devices with informational security similar to that required of medical records.
(3) Physicians should support research into the safety, efficacy, and potential non-medical uses of RFID devices in human beings.
(NEW HOD/CEJA Policy) Fiscal Note: Staff cost estimated at less than $500 to implement. * Reports of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs are assigned to the reference committee on Constitution and Bylaws. They may be adopted, not adopted, or referred. A report may not be amended, except to clarify the meaning of the report and only with the concurrence of the Council. [1] Ingeholm; Mun, K; Mun, SK. RFID in Healthcare: The Applications, and Obstacles, Are Many; Journal of AHIMA; 2006. 77(8): 56-62. [2] US Food and Drug Administration. Medical devices; general hospital and personal use devices; classification of implantable radiofrequency trasnsponder system for patient information and health information. Federal Register. 2004; 69(237): 71702-4. [3] DeNoon D. Chip implants: Better care or pricacy scare. 2005. Accessible at” https://www.webmd.com/content/Article/109/109216.htm [4] Wicks, AM; Visich, JK; Li, Suhong. Radio Frequency Identification Applications in Hospital Environments; Hospital Topics.2006; 84(3): 3-8. [5] VeriMed™ Information Center for Patients; https://www.verimedinfo.com/content/intro/physicians [6] Wasserman, Elizabeth. A Prescription for Pharmaceuticals; RFID Journal. 2006. Accessible at: https://www.rfidjournal.com/magazine/article/1739/1/173/ [7] Opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, Ethical Aspects of ICT Implants in the Human Body. 2005. Descarca aici: https://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/467/ceja5a07.doc
Am urmarit si eu “postfactum ” secventele video cu privire la DEZBATEREA publica care a fost organizata de AZEC asupra pasapoartelor electronice de identitate, si am observat ca s-au OMIS a fi macar ”atinse” tangential cateva lucruri deosebit de importante si serioase cu privire la impactul si implicatiile negative in plan social a acestor noi documented identitate : Lucrurile care consider ca s-au omis, le punctez mai jos, si le apreciez ca niste pareri personale, pe care le fac ca un crestin orthodox si ca un cetatean roman pe seama celor dicutate: 1. Nu s-a discutat nimic (sau aproape) nimic despre NOILE PERMISE ELECTRONICE DE CONDUCERE A AUTOVEHICULELOR, discutia concentrandu-se exclusiv pe analizarea si comentarea “pasapoartelor” electronice. 2. S-a omis a se RELIEFA si INVEDERA de catre vorbitorii care au fost invitati a lua cuvantul (inclusive de catre Avocatul Cezar AXINTE), un ASPECT deosebit al consecintelor negative ale implementarii in masa a noilor documente de identitate cu cip electronic si anume: – Daca cipul contine O ANTENA asa cum a explicat reprezentantul Ministerului de Interne, care a dat toate lamuririle “tehnice” publicului participant la aceasta dezbatere, INSEMNA, ca pasaportul/permisul auto, POATE RECEPTA si RESPECTIV EMITE SEMNALE. – Daca cipul poate nu numai…recpeta semnale (radio sau de alta natura), ci daca poate si EMITE semnale (pe frecventa de unde radio asa cum explica comisarul de la Directia de Pasapoarte), insemna logic ca aceste semnale POT fi la randul lor REPERATE si RECEPTATE (si “INTERCEPTATE”) si “LOCALIZATE” de anumite “statii electronice – receptoare” sau “aparate eletronice-receptoare” dotate cu ANTENE PUTERNICE si care sunt amplasate (cu precadere de catre marile armate lumii, dar si de catre institutii/companii civile care activeaza in domeniul telecomunicatiilor si care folosesc aparatura electronica de ultima generatie, pentru interceptarea unor astfel de semnale) in mediul terestru, subacvatic, in atmosfera sau in cosmos… – Cu totii stim ca SATELITII si alte aparate electronice, dar cu deosebire SATELITII, atat cei militari, cat si ceilalti, POT REPERA si RECEPTA DE LA MARE DISTANTA, cu o mare marja de PRECIZIE SPATIALA astfel de “semnale”. (ne aducem aminte ca unul din capii armatei cecene a fost “lichidat in trecut de armata rusa, tocmai pentru ca satelitii militari rusesti i-au interceptat si LOCALIZAT POZITIA spatial si geografica unde se afla, dupa semnalul “telefonului mobil” de la care acesta vorbea cu oamenii sai…”) – Prin urmare daca cipul documetelor de identitate electronice poate fi reperat/receptat/interceptat de catre SATELITI sau de alte ECHIPAMENTE TEHNICE de la…distanta, datorita semnalelor pe care le emite, atunci inseamna ca persoana posesoare a acestor documente electronice de identitate care contin aceste cipuri emitatoare de semnale, POATE FI LOCALIZATA IN SPATIU si TIMP in orice moment! – Iar daca o persoana – cetatean roman, posesoare a unor astfel de docmente de identitate electronice, poate fi LOCALIZATA in orice moment prin SATELIT (fie ca se deplaseaza cu masina, fie ca merge pe jos, fie ca se deplaseaza in tara sa, fie ca se deplaseaza in strainatate), atunci inseamna ca ea NU MAI CALATORESTE LIBER, asa cum afirma cu nonsalanta la dezbatere celalalt comisar care a luat in maini pasaportul electronic si care l-a descris in fata publicului. – Iar daca o persoana POATE FI “observata” si “urmarita” si “monitorizata” virtual si on line, si NON STOP, oriunde s-ar afla si in orice moment, atunci insemna ca UN MARE si IMPORTANT DREPT al sau si O MARE LIBETRTATE CIVILA a sa, care este prevazuta si stipulata si garantata atat de catre Constitutia Romaniei, cat si de catre alte Documente Internationale de Drept, Europene sau ale ONU, sunt INCALCATE in MOD ABUZIV de catre statul roman, dar si de catre autoritatile UE. Si anume : – Art. 25 din Constitutia Romaniei, – Art.18, alin.1 din Tratatul de Instituire a Uniunii Europene; – Art. II – 66, din Partea a II – a Tratatului de Instituire a unei Constitutii pentru Europa; – Art.13 din DECLARATIA UNIVERSALA A DREPTURILOR OMULUI, adoptata de Adunarea Generala a ONU la 10.dec.1948 ; – Art.9 si mai ales Art.12 din PACTUL INTERNATIONAL CU PRIVIRE LA DREPTURILE CIVILE SI POLITICE, adoptat de ONU, la 16.dec. 1966; – Art.5, alin.1 din CONVENTIA PENTRU APARAREA DREPTURILOR OMULUI si a LIBERTATILOR FUNDAMENTALE (adoptata de Consiliul Europei, la Roma la 4. nov. 1950, si “amendata prin alte protocoale ulterioare”); In stransa legatura cu acest articol se afla si Art.10, alin.1, teza I, care este in contradictie vadita ca NOUA lege 298 a monotorizarii mijloacelor de comunicare, adoptata de curand de legiuitorul roman! Iata asadar ca aceast ASPECT al implicatiilor si consecintelor deosebit de grave din punct de vedere al LIBERTATII DE CIRCULATIE a cetatenilor romani A FOST TOTAL NEOBSERVAT si NEDISCUTAT…public de catre reprezentantii AZEC-ului si invitatii sai! In alte cuvinte spus, DISCUTIA si DEZBATEREA organizata de AZEC a “gravitat” si s-a “axat” aproape exclusiv in jurul SEMNIFICATIEI “spirituale” si morale a cipului si a influentei sale negative asupra vietii (cu deosebire duhovnicesti) a crestinului, si asupra MANTURII SALE. Si s-au NEGLIJAT complet de catre vorbitorii care au luat cuvantul la dezbatere, IMPLICATIILE si CONSECINTELE periculoase majore NEDEMOCRATICE asupra DIMENSIUNII CIVICE a LIBERTATILOR si DREPTURILOR CIVILE fundamentale ale cetatenilor romani care sunt afectate negativ prin impementarea pe scara larga a acestor documente electronice! In alte cuvinte spus…nimeni din cei prezenti la dezbatere NU A VORBIT si nu a atins macar in treacat si tangential IDEEA fundamentala privitoare la faptul ca UNELE DREPTURI SI LIBERTATI CIVILE deosebit de IMPORTANTE ale cetatenilor romani au fost ”CIUNTITE” si la urma urmei…“PRIPONITE” serios (precum sunt “priponite vitele cu o funie mai lunga sau mai scurta la un tarus…sau cum sunt legate cu o sforicica pasarile zburatoare de picior…) prin noile acte normative care oficializeaza si reglemenmteaza implementarea In randul populatiei romanesti a noilor documete electronice de identitate, iar romanii au fost mintiti de guvernanti ca au ramas…totusi “pe deplin liberi, cand in retaliate au fost PRIPONITI ca…vitele de TARUSUL CIPULUI ELECTRONIC!! Este important A NU FI TRECUTE CU VEDEREA (prea usor si prea repede) aceste ASPECTE deosebit de importante ale implicatiilor sociale negative ale noilor documente de identitate asupra LIBERTATILOR CIVILE ale cetatenillor romani, care aspect au ramas NEABORDATE si NEDEZBATUTE si NECLARIFICATE la dezbaterea organizata de AZEC pe 22.ianuarie, pentru ca pe viitor toate aceste lucuri SA FIE REABORDATE si CLARIFICATE. Foarte bine ar fi daca aceste aspect pe care le-am invederat mai sus SI CARE AU FOST OMISE a fi dicutate la dezbaterea din 22.ian, sa fie AVUTE IN VEDERE atat de catre PATRIRAHIA B.O.R, care va trebui sa raspunda la Scrisoarea care I s-a adresat la sfarsitul dezbaterii organizate de AZEC, cat si de catre juristii romani care vor trebui sa PLEDEZE in viitor in fata CURTILOR DE JUSTITIE romanesti sau europene, in procesele in care se va sustine EXECEPTIA DE NECONSTITUTIONALITATE atat a actelor normative care reglementeaza noile documente electronice de identitate, cat si a LEGII NR. 298/2008, de care s- a facut atata caz in blogosfera romaneasca si in media romaneasca! In final, pentru a nu fi inteles gresit asupra celor spuse de mine pana acum, doresc sa fac o ultima remarca, si anume ca prin cele pe care le-am invederat in aceste randuri nu am dorit sa subliniez ca semnificatia duhovniceasca si morala si teologica pe care unii crestini ortodocsi o dau cipului nu ar fi importanta si ca in primul rand ar trebui sa “PRIMEZE” semnificatia CIVICA si JURIDICA a rolului si impactului social major…negative a acestor documente, ci doresc sa subliniez doar faptul ca acesta din urma INTERPRETARE si semnificatie nu a fost deloc SURPRINSA si TRATATA si PUNCTATA in timpul dezbaterilor, omiterea ei, lasand loc unor discutii si dezbateri viitoare…OBLIGATORII…! AMIN! Doamne ajuta! “
Un document descoperit de colegul meu, George Damian, de la ZIUA si Centrul de Studii pentru Resurse Romanesti, publicat acum, aici, in premiera in Romania, ne ofera argumente juridice si medicale impotriva folosirii cipului biometric implantat dar si a celui inserat in cadrul documentelor de identitate, pentru ca principiile privind drepturile fundamentale ale omului raman aceleasi. Studiul, chiar daca dateaza din 2005 (cu atat mai mult) trebuie sa intre in atentia Coalitiei Impotriva Statului Politienesc, a domnului doctor Pavel Chirila si a avocatilor nostri dar si a ierarhilor Bisericii care, inca, nu s-au pronuntat. Iata ca cei care sugerau ca trebuie sa ne conformam cerintelor UE nu au dreptate. Acestea nu sunt, inca, definite. Inca nu avem de a face cu Uniunea Sovietelor Socialiste Europene.
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN GROUP ON ETHICS IN SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION N° 20 Adopted on 16/03/2005 Original in English ******************************************************************************************************************
ETHICAL ASPECTS OF ICT IMPLANTS IN THE HUMAN BODY Reference: Opinion produced on the direct initiative of the EGE Rapporteurs: Professor Stefano Rodotà and Professor Rafael Capurro ****************************************************************************************************************** The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), Having regard to the European Union Treaty and in particular Article 6 of the common provisions concerning the respect for fundamental rights; Having regard to the EC Treaty and in particular Article 152 on public health; Having regard to the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union of 28 September 2000, approved by the European Council in Biarritz on 14th October 2000 and proclaimed solemnly in Nice by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on December 7th 2000, in particular Article 1 on « Human dignity », Article 3 on the « Right to the integrity of the person », and Article 8 on « Protection of personal data »; 1 Having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector; 2 Having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data; 3 Having regard to the Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices; 4 Having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed on 4 April 1997 in Oviedo; in particular Article 1 “Purpose and object”, Article 2 “Primacy of the human being”, Articles 5 to 9 on consent and Article 10 “Private life and right to information”; 5 Having regard to the Universal Declaration on the human genome and the rights of man adopted by the UNESCO on 11 November 1997; 6 Having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of the Council of Europe of 1 January 1981; 7 Having regard to the Declaration of Principles of the World Summit on the Information Society of 12 December 2003, in particular Article 58 on the use of ICTs and Article 59 on the abusive uses of ICTs; 8 Having regard to the hearings of experts and Commission Services by the EGE on 15/12/2003, 16/03/2004 and 15/06/2004 in Brussels; Having regard to the report by Dr Fabienne Nsanze “ICT implants in the human body – A Review”, February 2005; 9 Having regard to the Roundtable organised by the EGE on 21st December 2004 in Amsterdam; 10 Having heard the EGE rapporteurs, Professor Stefano Rodotà and Professor Rafael Capurro; WHEREAS: 1. INTRODUCTION Information and communication technologies (ICT) pervade our lives. Thus far, this pervasive influence has mainly involved devices that we use for private purposes or at the work place such as personal computers, mobile phones, laptops and the like. Due to new developments these devices are becoming more and more part of our bodies, either because we wear them (wearable computing) or because they are implanted in our bodies. At first sight ICT implants are ethically unproblematic if we think for instance about cardiac pacemakers. However, although ICT implants may be used to repair deficient bodily capabilities they can also be misused, particularly if these devices are accessible via digital networks. One might even think of such devices as a threat to human dignity and particularly to the integrity of the human body (see Section 5), while for others such implants might be seen primarily as a means for restoring damaged human capabilities and therefore as a contribution to the promotion of human dignity. The idea of letting ICT devices get under our skin in order not just to repair but even to enhance human capabilities gives rise to science fiction visions with threat and/or benefit characteristics. However, in some cases, the implantation of microchips is already taking place with the potential for individual and social forms of control. The intimate relation between bodily and psychic functions is basic to our personal identity. Modern neurosciences are emphasising this view. Language and imagination influence in a unique way our perception of time and space; the way we perceive ourselves and others; the way we relate to other non-human living beings and to the natural environment; the way we create historically, culturally, politically, legally, economically, and technically our societies; the way we acquire knowledge about ourselves and about the world; and the way we produce, create, and exchange things. ICT devices are the products of human invention. The functions they achieve are based on programmable or algorithmic calculations mostly using non-biological substances such as silicon. This allows a simulation of some biological and psychic functions11. Furthermore, it is in principle, and today also in practice, possible to implant ICT devices in the human body in order to restore bodily functions or, as in the case of prostheses and artificial limbs, to substitute some body parts. These are the essential reasons why potential and actual ICT implants in the human body have large and important ethical consequences. Consequently, the objective of this Opinion is primarily to raise awareness and questions concerning the ethical dilemmas created by a range of ICT implants in this rapidly expanding field. Ethical awareness and analysis must take place now in order to ensure an appropriate and timely impact on the various technological applications. Nevertheless, where necessary this Opinion proposes clear ethical boundaries, legal principles and suggests several steps that should be taken by responsible regulators in Europe. The Opinion focuses on ICT implants in the human body (see Section 6.1). 2. GLOSSARY ICT devices: Devices using information and communication technologies usually based on silicon chip technology. Active medical device: Any medical device relying for its functioning on an internal and independent source of electrical energy or any source of power other than that directly generated by the human body or gravity.12 Active implantable medical device: Any active medical device which is intended to be totally or partially introduced surgically or medically, into the human body or by medical intervention into a natural orifice, and which is intended to remain after the procedure.13 Passive ICT implants: ICT implants in the human body that rely on an external electromagnetic field for their operation (see for example Section 3.1.1 the “Verichip”). Online ICT implants: ICT implants that rely for their operation on an (“online”) connection to an external computer or which can be interrogated (“online”) by an external computer (see for example Section 3.1.2 Biosensors). Offline ICT implants: ICT implants that operate independently of external ICT devices (perhaps after an initial setting up operation) (see for example Section 3.1.1 Deep Brain Stimulation). 3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND (See detailed report by Dr Fabienne Nsanze “ICT implants in the human body – a review” of February 2005 – annexed to this Opinion) 3.1. Current Applications and Research 3.1.1. Applications: ICT implants on the market This section contains information about implants in the human body that are available in commercial form and have been researched, in some cases, for decades. Active medical devices The history of implantable devices in clinical practice started in the 1960s with the development of the first heart pacemakers to replace the autonomic rhythm of the heart. Systems for bladder stimulation that allow paraplegics (paralysis of the lower limbs often resulting from spinal cord injuries) to control voiding followed in the 1980s. The most recent examples of active implants for functional electrical stimulation are stimulators to treat pain in patients with tumours and trembling caused by Parkinson’s disease, and to restore the grasp function in quadriplegics (paralysis of the arms, legs and trunk below the level of an associated spinal cord injury). Typical devices include the following: • Cardiovascular pacers for patients with conduction disorders or heart failure • Cochlear implants: the cochlear implant differs from the hearing aid in that it does not amplify sound and bypasses the damaged part to send sound signals directly to the auditory nerve. • Auditory Brainstem implant (ABI) is an auditory prosthesis that bypasses the cochlea and auditory nerve to help individuals who cannot benefit from a cochlear implant because the auditory nerves are not working. The brainstem implant stimulates directly the cochlear nucleus situated in the brainstem. • Implantable programmable drug delivery pumps:
Un articol aparut in TIME, in 18 octombrie 2007, dar care contine date foarte interesante.
Foto: Tiny radio frequency identification (RFID) computer chips with the needles used to implant them under the skin.
You may not know what RFID stands for, but you’re probably using the technology on a daily basis. RFID (that is, radio frequency identification) is in passports, in electronic toll-collection tags, in credit cards, metrocards, library books and car keys. Like conventional bar codes, RFID chips store and relay information, and allow for the identification of commercial products — and, now, of house pets and people too. Human “tagging” was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 to facilitate retrieval of private medical records, but the procedure has had few takers. It’s still purely voluntary and last week, California Gov. Schwarzenegger sought to keep it that way, signing a bill that makes it illegal for employers to force workers to have RFID devices implanted as a means for receiving paychecks or government benefits. But this summer, a large pilot program involving hundreds of human patients got under way at the Alzheimer’s Community Care agency in West Palm Beach, Florida. The maker of the RFID chips used in the program, VeriChip Corporation, a subsidiary of the Delray Beach–based Applied Digital Solutions, is funding the initiative and wants to market its tags to the roughly 45 million high-risk patients in the U.S. with diseases such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer and heart disease. The company says these patients can benefit from having instant and accurate access to medical records, which the chip would provide. “The medical community understands the need for a comprehensive electronic medical record that has portability,” says VeriChip Chairman and CEO Scott Silverman. “What goes on in emergency rooms and even in practices today is archaic. Pen-and-paper record keeping is 97% of medical records today; 98,000 deaths occurred last year in emergency rooms because of no information or inaccurate information.” To date 2,000 people worldwide have voluntarily had the VeriChip tag implanted into their upper right arms, among them patients with chronic or debilitating disease — as well as VIP patrons of a Barcelona nightclub and investigators requiring special access to confidential drug-trafficking case files at the Ministry of Justice in Mexico. Over the next two years, VeriChip and Alzheimer’s Community Care plans to inject 110 patients with dementia or Alzheimer’s with the chip as well. But VeriChip came under fire in September — shortly after the first 90 or so Alzheimer’s patients received its chips in Florida — after an AP report unearthed studies suggesting the chips may cause cancer in laboratory animals. Within two weeks of the AP report, VeriChip’s stock plummeted from just under $6 a share to a low of $3.50, a company spokesman says. The AP cited three studies published between 1996 and 2006 that “found that lab mice and rats injected with microchips sometimes developed subcutaneous sarcomas — malignant tumors, most of them encasing the implants.” In an exclusive interview with TIME, Silverman provided a list of 34 studies the company included in its FDA application, including one of the three mentioned in the AP article, which showed that less than 1% of 4,279 chipped mice developed tumors “clearly due to the implanted microchips” but were otherwise healthy, and that “no clinical symptoms except the nodule on their backs were shown.” The second study, conducted in France in 2006, two years after VeriChip’s FDA application was approved, found that while 4% of the 1,260 mice in the study developed tumors, none of them were malignant. As for the third study, Silverman says it was conducted in mice specifically bred to produce tumors, and was therefore omitted from the sheaf of studies included in the FDA application. Other studies that were sent to the regulatory agency also showed tumor growth, but associated only with vaccination sites. Dr. Lawrence D. McGill, a veterinarian and leading expert in animal pathology says the tumor development in rodents is unsurprising. “Even if you put in a bland piece of plastic, it will produce tumors in rats and mice,” says McGill, who assessed the studies on behalf of VeriChip. He says it would be a leap to apply the findings of studies in mice to cats or dogs — or to humans, for that matter — which are much more complex animals. Few official scientific studies have been conducted on the effects of microchip implants on house pets, but none have found a link between the chips and cancer, says McGill. If there were a problem, he says, we would have already seen lots of cancer among the approximately 10 million pets that have been chipped over the past 15 years. Says Silverman, “There are no reported incidents to the FDA of any cancer formation around that.” In fact, there has been one case of cancer — in a French bulldog named Leon — according to a 2006 study in Veterinary Pathology. But it remains unclear whether the cancer was caused by a microchip or as the result of an injection, or who the maker of the chip was. The dog’s tumor was removed in 2004, and a later examination found no recurrence. It seems that no one notified the FDA about Leon, but his case doesn’t appear to worry the agency, as evident from a statement it issued when the AP brought Leon’s story to light in September. “At this time, we continue to believe that the VeriChip is safe for humans,” the FDA said. “In all the safety data the FDA has reviewed for this device, including extensive animal data, we have seen no evidence suggesting toxic or carcinogenic effects.” News of the tumor studies haven’t yet dissuaded other groups, including Alzheimer’s Community Care and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), from encouraging the use of RFID microchips. Given the large number of Alzheimer’s patients in South Florida and the potential for natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods, the VeriChip comes in handy, says Mary Barnes, president and CEO of Alzheimer’s Community Care, because, unlike a medical medallion, it cannot be taken off or lost. “In Palm Beach County and South Florida, we have projected over 200,000 Alzheimer’s patients,” Barnes says. “When you’ve got that kind of risk out there for our family members … this type of technology is a godsend.” Over the next two years, Barnes will monitor how often medical records change for each of the patients in her agency’s RFID program, and will track how the caregivers work with the new technology. “You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to figure out this has great possibilities,” she says. Meanwhile, a handful of concerned pet owners have expressed interest in removing RFID chips from their furry companions, but VeriChip hasn’t heard of anyone doing so yet. The AVMA officially counsels against removing the chip, while assuring pet owners it will continue to monitor the situation. “At this point we do not recommend that people should stop microchipping,” says Dr. Rosemary LoGiudice, a veterinarian and assistant director with the AVMA. “We are actively watching. For the number of animals that are said to actually have microchips, when you consider the number of animals that have been microchipped and returned to their owners, the benefits are huge compared to the few and suspect cases that have been reported to have tumor formation.” At VeriChip, the outlook remains hopeful. Silverman says his company is bracing for the negative press by gathering up studies that prove the safety of its product. Even though the public hasn’t yet warmed to RFID tagging, Silverman says that sales are brisk and expects this year to double the 1.7 million chips sold in 2006.
ZIUA a solicitat institutiei care apara drepturile fundamentale ale romanilor sa sesizeze Curtea Constitutionala cu privire la abuzurile din Legea 298/2008 * Exceptia de neconstitutionalitate se refera la trei articole din Constitutie * Acestea sunt incalcate prin obligarea operatorilor de telefonie si Internet de a inregistra automat orice date despre convorbirile telefonice, localizare si trafic * Sunt violate art. 26 care obliga autoritatile publice sa respecte si sa ocroteasca “viata intima, familiala si privata”; art. 28 care spune ca “secretul (…) convorbirilor telefonice si al celorlalte mijloace legale de comunicare este inviolabil” si art. 53 care prevede ca “restrangerea exercitiului unor drepturi sau al unor libertati poate fi dispusa numai daca este necesara intr-o societate democratica. Masura trebuie sa fie proportionala cu situatia care a determinat-o, sa fie aplicata in mod nediscriminatoriu si fara a aduce atingere existentei dreptului sau a libertatii” * O alta lacuna a legii este lipsa oricarui control asupra operatiunii de interceptare, ceea ce face ca legea sa poata fi usor transformata intr-un instrument de politie politica * Liviu Nistoran, presedintele Autoritatii Nationale pentru Comunicatii, a declarat ca va solicita modificarea Legii pentru a elimina posibilitatea inregistrarii convorbirii telefonice * Solicitarea ZIUA vine pe fondul declaratiilor lui Claudiu Elwis Saftoiu, care a sustinut ca seful statului stia ce vorbesc adversarii politici, si al afirmatiilor lui Doru Viorel Ursu, care a recunoscut ca pe vremea guvernului Roman politia politica era la ordinea zilei
de Razvan Savaliuc Isteria nationala a telefoanelor ascultate s-a reaprins odata cu intrarea in vigoare a Legii nr. 298/2008, care ii obliga pe operatorii de telefonie si servicii de Internet sa stocheze timp de sase luni datele referitoare la comunicatii. Cica doar datele despre cand s-a apelat, de unde, de cine si cat s-a vorbit – nu si continutul acestora. Legea, trecuta pe sest prin Parlament la finele anului trecut, nu a suportat nici o dezbatere publica. Degeaba au murit sute de tineri la Revolutie pentru a alunga un regim totalitar, pentru ca vechile metehne nu au disparut. Prin manifestari de autoritarism. De aceea asistam la interminabile batalii politice pentru serviciile secrete, care asculta fara sa dea socoteala. Pentru ca aceasta este trista realitate. Nici un serviciu secret sau parchet, abilitat sa faca interceptari, nu este controlat la modul real asupra legalitatii interceptarilor. Comisiile de control parlamentar sunt o gluma proasta – o adunatura de nespecialisti plimbati din cand in cand, cu mari plecaciuni, prin sediile unor servicii secrete, sa vada niste computere si echipamente la care se uita precum curca in lemne. Mai mira pe cineva ca in Romania nu exista persoana trasa la raspundere pentru ascultari ilegale? De ce intr-un stat, declarat democrat, toate interceptarile se fac prin intermediul serverelor SRI? De cand un serviciu secret a devenit garantul democratiei? De ce se intarzie constituirea unui centru independent de interceptari, cum exista in fiecare stat european care se respecta si se prefera mentinerea monopolului SRI pe ascultari? Si mai frapeaza un lucru. Legea 298 ar fi trebuit sa lase operatorilor din comunicatii un timp suficient pentru a se dota cu tehnica necesara inregistrarilor automate de date. Dar si cu softuri complicate de gestionare si protectie, care nu se creaza peste noapte. N-au existat decat 60 de zile de la publicarea in Monitorul Oficial si intrarea in vigoare. Iar operatorii nu s-au plans de termenul prea scurt. Ceea ce denota ca ei detineau demult mijloacele necesare, iar legea nu a venit decat sa regleze un cadru legal mai restrictiv. Mergand pe aceeasi logica, putem concluziona ca si convorbirile propriu-zise sunt inregistrate si stocate pe luni de zile, de vreme ce trec prin serverele SRI. Presa, si mai ales ZIUA, a scris la greu despre faptul ca oricine are un telefon fix sau mobil, ori un abonament de acces la Internet, poate fi monitorizat permanet unde se afla, cu cine si ce vorbeste. Si ca serviciile secrete, dar si grupari particulare specializate pe santaj, detin de ani de zile tehnica de interceptare cu care se poate asculta orice mobil, fara risc de depistare. Factorul politic a dus mereu lumea de nas, a speriat-o cu potentiale pericole – terorism, ciminalitate transfrontaliera – pentru a justifica mecanisme care sa permita controlul vietii personale. Dar mereu, cand isteria telefoanelor a incins natiunea, s-a ocolit o dezbatere pe tema garantarii unui control efectiv, prin lege, a celor care sunt abilitati sa intercepteze. Ce echipamente au achizitionat, cum le folosesc, si cu ce eficienta. Peste tot se strange cureaua la cheltuieli, dar nimeni nu a verificat, de la Revolutie incoace fondurile fabuloase, nelimitate, pe care le au serviciile la indemana pentru filaj si interceptari. De ce nu avem decat un singur expert autorizat pe voce si vorbire, in toata tara, si acela angajat al statului? Si de ce nimeni dintre cei ascultati cu mandat si nedovediti ca pregateau vreo infractiune (cum s-a motivat de magistrati cand au emis autorizatiile de interceptare) nu este chemat sa i se puna in vedere ca a fost ascultat si ca poate depune plangere daca se considera lezat? Asa cum se procedeaza in toate statele UE. Raspunsul e simplu: politicienii romani si uneltele lor din servicii sunt primii la adoptat orice masura recomandata de America sau Europa pentru supravegherea oamenilor, sub masca combaterii terorismului si criminalitatii. Si primii care sa descurajeze orice tentativa a societatii civile de control in acest domeniu. Pentru ca cine are informatia detine si Puterea. Sursa:Nici un control la ascultari
Grupul Areopag va invita marti, 27 ianuarie, ora 18.00, la conferinta cu tema „Sfarsitul Lumii – Intre profetii si obsesii”
Locatie: Sala Dalles, lângă Librăria Noi.
Vor vorbi: Ierom. IOAN ŞIŞMANIAN (de la Mănăstirea Petru Vodă), Maica ECATERINA FERMO, LAURENŢIU DUMITRU, DANION VASILE. Conferinţa va fi transmisă în direct pe https://www.ortodoxradio.ro/.
Se vor lansa volumele „Stareţii despre vremurile din urmă” şi „Zorii Apocalipsei”. Rog anuntati mai departe, pe e-mail-uri, messenger sau, cel mai eficient, prin viu grai… Cu mulţumiri, Danion Vasile
Miercuri si Joi, Oradea şi Beiuş
Miercuri 28 ianuarie, începând cu orele 17.00, la Casa Armatei din Oradea va avea loc conferinta publica cu tema “Îndosarierea electronică şi libertatea umană”, susţinută de ieroschimonahul Ioan Şişmăniean de la mănăstirea Petru Vodă din judeţul Neamţ. Etapa a doua a conferinţei va avea loc a doua zi, joi 29 ianuarie, ora 17.00, la Beiuş, în sala mare a primăriei, cu tema „Îndosarierea electronică, între profetie si fabulaţie” susţinută tot de părintele Ioan de la mănăstirea Petru Vodă. Organizatorii sunt: Fundaţia creştină ortodoxă Sfinţii Arhangheli Mihail şi Gavriil în colaborare cu Asociaţia pentru păstrarea şi promovarea valorilor culturale şi nationale ale poporului român – ASTRADROM Intrarea liberă. Ancuţa Avram, Preşedinte ASTRADROM
Miercuri, 11 februarie, Bucuresti
Coalitia Impotriva Statului Politienesc anunta pentru data de miercuri 11.02.2009 un miting de protest impotriva aplicarii hotararii de Guvern nr. 1566/15.12.2008 privind inserarea cipurilor biometrice in pasapoarte.
Vom cere ANULAREA Hotararii de Guvern si SUSPENDAREA ei de catre instanta de judecata.
Reamintesc ca in aceeasi zi vom avea termen de judecata la Curtea de Apel Bucuresti, unde se va cere suspendarea Hotararii 666, pana la judecarea contestatiei. Este posibil ca acest Apel sa se concretizeze la nivel national, prin mitinguri simultane si in alte orase ale tarii. Declaratia de miting va fi depusa la primarie luni 26 ianuarie. Inca nu stim exact ce locatie ne va aproba primaria, dat fiind numarul mare de participanti pe care il speram. Intentia noastra este de a face mitingul in fata sediului Curtii de Apel Bucuresti, pentru a arata judecatorilor seriozitatea cazului, importanta lui precum si sustinerea populatiei fata de aceasta cerere de suspendare. Cei care sunt ferm hotarati sa participe, sa isi anunte participarea din timp, pentru a organiza cu acestia o intalnire prealabila, pentru aspecte organizatorice. Legea ne obliga sa avem la fiecare 10 oameni o persoana insarcinata cu servicul de ordine al mitingului. Un alt miting pe care il anuntam de pe acum va fi la sediul Avocatului Poporului, pe str. Eugen Carada, langa Banca Nationala, in Bucuresti avand ca obiect sesizarea Curtii Constitutionale cu privire la neconstitutionalitatea Legii 298, ce priveste inregistrarea comunicatiilor electronic.
PS: Nu vreau sa par prapastios, dar chiar numarul Hotararii de Guvern imi da fiori – 1566 este un numar straniu, caci daca adunam primele doua cifre din numarul hotararii 1+5, atunci avem… Hotararea 666.
“Şi ea îi sileşte pe toţi, pe cei mici şi pe cei mari, şi pe cei bogaţi şi pe cei săraci, şi pe cei slobozi şi pe cei robi, ca să-şi pună semn pe mâna lor cea dreaptă sau pe frunte. Încât nimeni să nu poată cumpăra sau vinde, decât numai cel ce are semnul, adică numele fiarei, sau numărul numelui fiarei.”
In ultimii ani s-a constata o accelerare a eforturilor de popularizare a bio-cipului implantabil realizat de Corporatia VeriChip, condusa de un Board de Directori format din Jeffrey Cobb, Barry M Edelstein, Steven R Foland, Scott Silverman si Michael Krawitz. Produsul a devenit o realitatea pe piata americana inca din 2004, cand US Food and Drug Administration – Departamentul american pentru Alimentatie si Medicamente (FDA) a aprobat folosirea bio-cipului ca sistem implantabil care contine tehnologie de identificare prin radio frecventa (prescurtat RFID). Conform prevederilor companiei producatoare, VeriChip, bio-cipul mai mic decat un bob de orez contine o baza de date si un numar de identificare unic si se implanteaza in mana dreapta.
VeriChip Corporation (https://www.verichipcorp.com/), producatorul micro-cipurilor, le face reclama drept cel mai sigur si rapid mod de a accesa informatii medicale de la o persoana, in situatii de urgenta. Dupa cum probabil stiti, Statele Unite au inceput deja sa implanteze aceste bio-cipuri voluntarilor dar si copiilor, bolnavilor, detinutilor si militarilor. Discutia principala din spatiul public american si nu numai, este, in acest moment, inlocuirea cartilor de identitate, in timp, cu aceste bio-cipuri implantate in mana dreapta.
Inca sunt voci, izolate, care reclama, ca si noi acum, faptul ca tehnica permite interceptarea informatiilor, ca avem de a face cu insemnarea cu numarul Fiarei, ca este un atac la libertatea persoanei, etc, etc. Acum, razboiul impotriva terorismului cumulat cu “salvarea mondiala” de criza ce se amplifica, la randul ei indusa, justifica orice masura excesiva. America trebuie perceputa ca un experiment. “Experimentul Pitesti” a fost aplicat, cu succes, intr-o alta forma, neviolenta dar cu acelasi scop si la scara larga, precum comunismul, asupra amestecului de populatii din Statele Unite. Rezistenta este asadar minima si anihilabila. Probabil mai auziti din cand in cand de cate un grup de credinciosi – catalogati rapid de media drept extremisti – care se refugiaza in munti si refuza orice legatura cu statul federal, pentru ca apoi sa aflam ca o razie FBI a reusit sa “repuna situatie in legalitate”, cu ajutorul uzului excesiv al armelor de foc.
Pana la faza aceasta, aici, in spatiul european, inca pregatit la o rezistenta in masa datorita crestinismului si a culturii milenare a natiunilor bine inradacinate in arealul lor ancestral, se opereaza cu acest instrument intemediar, actul de identitate cu micro-cip. Dupa cum intemeiat a avertizat Duhovnicul Neamului, Parintele Iustin Parvu, in urma revelatiei sale, acesta este un semn premergator insemnarii fizice cu numarul Fiarei, conform profetiei Apocalipsei, pe mana dreapta si pe frunte. Si iata dovada tehnica, cunoscuta deja la nivelul expertilor: conform unor surse independente de presa, deci neoccidentale, focalizarea discutiei publice asupra VeriChip pune in umbra faza a doua a operatiunii malefice. Conform acestor surse, la ora aceasta s-a edificat deja cel de-al doilea proiect ultra-sofisticat, sub comanda Agentiei de Cercetari si Proiecte Avansate de Aparare (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – DARPA) care apartine de Departamentul Apararii Statelor Unite. DARPA (https://www.darpa.mil/) este, printre multe altele, si inventatoarea Internetului.
Inventia care ar putea implini Profetia este un alt micro-cip implantabil, numit Multiple Micro Electrode Array – MMEA (Vezi Multielectrode array si Biochip). Acest cip va fi implantat in cap, in zona fruntii, pe un nerv care va conecta creierul direct la un calculator. Inventia este deja testata cu succes si are diferite aplicatii, in special, momentan, medicale si militare. Concret, aceasta va permite practic teleghidarea unui om de la distanta. Experimentele (publice) de pana acum au demonstrat cum un cobai devine o jucarie vie in mainile specialistilor care detin telecomanda. Sigur, totul pare de SF. Dar la fel era pentru stramosii nostri posibilitatea zborului in spatiu. Acum totul este normal, asa cum va parea, poate, si urmasilor nostri folosirea acestor micro-bio-cipuri, pentru “beneficiile” aduse de acestea in “situatii de urgenta”.
De aici, nu va mai fi decat un pas, pentru americani, pana la implinirea Profetiei, doi, probabil, pentru romani. Poate dura 10, 20 sau 30 de ani, poate dura mai mult – in functie de gradul de “civilizatie” al zonei -, dar in tot cazul, suntem foarte aproape. “Nu credeam că voi trăi să văd şi eu începutul acestor vremuri de durere, apocaliptice”, afirma Parintele Justin in Apelul sau la trezire. Un clevetitor infiltrat in Biserica noastra, fragmentata deja, in cea oficiala si cea reala, se intreba cu glas tare de ce trebuie sa mai respectam niste canoane “invechite”, in cazul scandalului apostaziei lui Corneanu. Acum, pentru a fi luat in deradere demersul de avertizare profetica venit din partea Parintelui Justin Parvu, se spune acelasi lucru despre scrierea sfanta a Apocalipsei. Si totusi, ea se intampla.
January 27th, 2009 
VR 
Iata ca dupa ce a trecut ca prin branza in Parlamentul Romaniei o lege anti-democratica, indreptata impotriva libertatilor fundamentale ale omului, cum este Legea 298/2008, a trebuit sa se ridice un ziar in apararea cetatenilor tarii. Aceasta pare sa fie ultima speranta a romanilor, dupa Biserica: o presa cu adevarat libera, care sa dea la cap ticalosilor reprezentanti ai clasei politice tradatoare a intereselor nationale, aflati mana in mana cu beneficiarii afacerii interceptarilor, unde zangane euro pe euro de vreo cateva zeci, ba poate chiar sute de milioane de ori.
Posted in Uncategorized 
Tags: 
