The Agenda 2030 Surveillance Grid: How Digital Health Tracking, Emergency Use Listings, and the Erosion of Informed Consent Are Building a Global Monitoring System
A comprehensive investigation into the convergence of vaccine tracking, digital identity mandates, and mass surveillance infrastructure—and why independent legal action remains our only recourse
The governments told us it was about public health. They told us it was temporary. They told us to trust the science. But here we sit in 2025, watching the meticulous construction of a global surveillance apparatus that would make Orwell weep—not from shock, but from the bitter validation that his warnings went unheeded.
The architecture is already in place. From the facial recognition cameras embedded in European street lights to China’s 600-million-camera Skynet system, from digital vaccine certificates now being promoted as essential health infrastructure to the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 mandate for universal digital identity by decade’s end, we are witnessing the convergence of technologies, policies, and international frameworks into something unprecedented in human history: a planetary surveillance grid with the technical capacity to track, trace, and control every human being on Earth.
And it all accelerated under the banner of a public health emergency.
The Emergency That Never Ends! Understanding WHO’s Emergency Use Listing
At the heart of this system lies a regulatory mechanism that fundamentally undermines informed consent while providing legal cover for untested interventions- being the World Health Organization’s Emergency Use Listing (EUL) procedure.
Let’s be precise about what the EUL actually is. According to WHO’s own documentation, the EUL is explicitly designed as “a risk-based procedure for assessing and listing unlicensed vaccines, therapeutics and in vitro diagnostics” when “limited data are available“ and products “are not yet ready for application for prequalification.”
Read that again. Unlicensed products. Limited data. Not ready for proper approval.
The EUL determines whether “the submitted data demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the vaccine quality, safety and effectiveness are acceptable and that the benefits outweigh the foreseeable risks and uncertainties.” (WHO EUL procedure for vaccines) Not certainty. Not proven safety. Reasonable likelihood that benefits might outweigh risks and uncertainties.
One WHO document candidly states the EUL applies when “the community/public health authorities may be willing to consider the use of vaccines that have had critical information on efficacy and safety available“—notice the careful phrasing. Critical information “available,” not complete. Not proven. Just... available.
This is regulatory theater masquerading as science! The WHO has created a mechanism that by design accepts “less certainty about safety” (their framing, not ours) and codifies it as acceptable public health policy. They’ve institutionalized uncertainty as a feature, not a bug.
And now, through instruments like the proposed Pandemic Treaty and ongoing International Health Regulations amendments, they’re working to make this emergency framework permanent and legally binding on member states. The temporary becomes perpetual. The emergency becomes the new normal.
IoJ’s Case in Costa Rica - When the Courts Admit You’re Right But the System Keeps You Fighting Anyway
This is precisely why we took Costa Rica’s government to the Constitutional Chamber on many occasions as well as the ordinary court. Our legal argument is straightforward and, frankly, devastating to the official narrative: the mRNA injections deployed under COVID-19 emergency use authorizations do not meet the established definition of a vaccine according to the legislative definition of Costa Rica.
We’re not making a semantic argument. We’re making a definitional one grounded in regulatory law. Traditional vaccines introduce a dead or weakened pathogen to stimulate immune response. These mRNA products introduce genetic instructions that cause the body’s own cells to manufacture spike proteins—functioning more accurately as a gene therapy delivery system than a conventional vaccine. The distinction isn’t pedantic; it’s fundamental to regulatory classification, informed consent, and legal liability frameworks.
The Costa Rican government, through its own legal representatives, has acknowledged that we have presented a valid case requiring adjudication. They’ve confirmed we need to proceed to the ordinary court system for full consideration of the merits.
Think about what that means. We’re not being dismissed as conspiracy theorists. We’re not being thrown out for lack of standing. The Constitutional Chamber heard our arguments about regulatory failures, definitional problems, and informed consent violations—and the government itself said, “Yes, this needs to go to trial.”
But here’s where the institutional capture reveals itself in full bureaucratic splendor, the system sends you in circles. Constitutional Court refers you to ordinary court. Ordinary court requires extensive documentation, multiple attorneys, years of legal fees. File motions. Wait months. Get procedural roadblocks. File more motions. Wait more months. Meanwhile, the policies you’re challenging remain in effect. The vaccines continue rolling out. The surveillance infrastructure keeps expanding. The emergency powers stay activated.
It’s not that the system is broken. It’s that the system is working exactly as designed—to exhaust resources, drain momentum, and ensure that by the time you win (if you win), the policies have become so entrenched that your victory is functionally meaningless. We have won 5 times in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme court extracting little gold nuggets of evidence comiling our legal arguments for the ordinary case we have been building up for so long. Its a tough process!
This is why we need sustained long term funding. Not for a quick case. For the long war.
The European Surveillance Creeps With Facial Recognition on Every Corner
While we fight our legal battles, the infrastructure of control metastasizes across continents.
In Europe, the proliferation of facial recognition technology in public spaces has accelerated with barely a whisper of democratic debate. Consider:
Belgrade, Serbia has deployed over 1,000 cameras with facial recognition capabilities provided by Chinese tech giant Huawei, monitoring public squares and capturing up to ten body and facial attributes per person. Citizens weren’t consulted. The cameras simply appeared.
Nice, France attempted to become a “laboratory” for biometric mass surveillance before the French Data Protection Authority forced partial rollbacks. But the infrastructure remains, waiting for the next emergency, the next justification, the next administrative workaround.
Hungary has connected its 35,000 CCTV cameras into a single centralized searchable system, with biometric databases fully integrated, allowing police to identify any citizen from their face alone.
London deploys live facial recognition cameras in public spaces—a practice that no other European police force has adopted for real-time public surveillance. Civil liberties groups in the UK have documented police stopping individuals who attempt to avoid these cameras, treating the act of covering one’s face as inherently suspicious.
These systems aren’t mounted on dedicated security installations. They’re embedded in street lights, traffic signals, and utility poles—transforming the essential infrastructure of urban life into nodes in a surveillance network. The lights that guide you home are watching you. The traffic signals measuring your commute are measuring you.
A 2021 study by Greens/EFA documented the spread of these systems across EU member states, often deployed without proper legal authorization or public notification. In Kyiv, 195 cameras at metro stations include facial recognition and temperature scanning. Rotterdam experimented with cameras and microphones designed to detect “suspicious movement and trajectories.” Brussels International Airport used facial recognition to check passengers against blacklists.
And every time civil society pushes back, every time privacy advocates file complaints, every time courts issue restrictions, the technology simply migrates, rebrands, or gets folded into the next “smart city initiative” with better PR and vaguer oversight.
China’s Blueprint As An Early Example, Their Skynet System and 600 Million Eyes
If Europe represents surveillance creeps, China demonstrates surveillance at totalitarian scale.
China’s Skynet system—named, with either breathtaking irony or chilling honesty, after the AI nemesis from the Terminator franchise—officially launched in 2005 and was publicly acknowledged in 2013. By 2018, the network included more than 20 million cameras. Current estimates put the total somewhere between 200 and 600 million surveillance cameras nationwide—more than half of all surveillance cameras globally.
These aren’t simple security cameras. They’re AI-powered nodes in an integrated national surveillance grid that:
Uses sophisticated facial recognition software capable of identifying individuals within seconds by cross-referencing billions of stored images
Employs gait recognition technology to identify people by the way they walk
Automatically detects and publicly shames jaywalkers by displaying their faces on public billboards while they’re still crossing the street
Integrates with China’s social credit system to restrict air travel, high-speed rail access, hotel bookings, and school enrollment for those deemed non-compliant
Tracks every transaction through WeChat, China’s super-app that functions as messaging service, payment system, ID verification, and surveillance portal all in one
In 2018, more than 17 million Chinese citizens were banned from flying due to low social credit scores. Their crime? Potentially anything from actual criminal behavior to posting government criticism online to having friends who post government criticism online.
During COVID-19, Skynet proved its “value” by tracking contacts, enforcing quarantines, and monitoring compliance with lockdown orders in real time. Chinese state media proudly claimed the system could scan all 1.4 billion Chinese faces in under one second. Whether literally true or not hardly matters—the claim itself serves the surveillance function by ensuring citizens believe they’re always being watched.
This is the future authoritarian governments dream of: perfect information, perfect compliance, perfect control.
And Western governments are taking notes.
The Internet of Things And When Your Toaster Reports to the State
The surveillance grid extends beyond cameras. The rise of the “Internet of Things” (IoT)—the network of internet-connected devices from smart home assistants to fitness trackers to connected cars—creates additional data collection points that most people don’t recognize as surveillance tools.
Your smart TV? It may be recording your conversations. That’s not paranoia; it’s in the terms of service you didn’t read.
Your fitness tracker? It knows where you run, when you sleep, your heart rate patterns, and potentially your emotional state based on biometric variations.
Your smartphone? It’s a tracking device that happens to make calls. Location data. App usage. Communication metadata. Browsing history. Purchase patterns. Social connections. All collected, all analyzed, all potentially accessible to government agencies with the right legal instrument—or to corporations building profiles for the next generation of “personalized services.”
When you combine IoT data with digital identity systems, health passports, and centralized surveillance infrastructure, you create the technical capacity for total information awareness. Not potential surveillance. Actual surveillance. Continuous, pervasive, granular tracking of human behavior at population scale.
Agenda 2030 and the Digital Identity Mandate
All of these—cameras, facial recognition, health passports, IoT tracking—is being systematically legitimized and institutionalized through United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16.9, part of the broader Agenda 2030 framework.
SDG 16.9’s official language sounds innocuous: “By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.” Who could object to universal birth registration?
But drill down to the implementation documents, and the picture changes dramatically. The World Bank explicitly states that birth registration alone is insufficient. Their documentation specifies that health treatments must be tracked, including vaccinations. Digital identity is being positioned as essential infrastructure for banking, households with “more than one family,” and accessing government services.
The 2018 Strategic Partnership Framework between the World Bank and United Nations consolidated their joint commitment to implementing Agenda 2030, with digital identity as a cornerstone. Microsoft’s ID2020 initiative, helmed by Bill Gates, describes itself as focused on “getting digital IDs right”—including, controversially, exploring implantable chip-based identification systems.
The UN’s 2024 “Pact for the Future” and “Global Digital Compact” make the connections explicit. As documented by critics including Michael Rectenwald, these proposals aim to establish “’inclusion’ through technological means such as closing the ‘digital divide,’ which depends on the universal adoption of a digital identity system. Digital identity is the means by which one is ‘included’ and without which one essentially does not exist.”
Read that carefully: without digital identity, you essentially do not exist. Not hyperbole. Official policy framing.
The documents call for digital health certificates linked to identity systems, “novel platform-based vaccine technologies,” and “smart vaccine manufacturing techniques” to produce “greater numbers of higher-quality vaccines” with streamlined deployment capabilities.
Translation: a global system where your vaccination status, health data, and identity credentials are unified in a digital format required for travel, employment, education, and participation in civic life. And all justified as necessary for “pandemic preparedness” and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.
The Immunization Agenda 2030, “Data-Driven” Vaccination
Running parallel to Agenda 2030’s digital identity push is the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030), which explicitly calls for vaccination programs “driven by data” and supported by “health information systems that provide high-quality data tailored for action.”
The Plan of Action for Strengthening Information Systems for Health 2024-2030 describes creating a “digital highway” that will “enable countries to be better prepared for future pandemics and other health threats by strengthening public health surveillance.”
Public health officials are remarkably candid about the purpose: digital vaccine certificates provide “real-time data for public health surveillance,” allowing health authorities to “continuously monitor vaccination in target populations” and “respond quickly to emerging threats.” The system enables “centralized and interoperable databases” with “automatic updates.”
Again, notice the framing. This isn’t being sold as a tool for individual health record management. It’s explicitly described as infrastructure for population surveillance and rapid deployment of interventions.
One peer-reviewed article published in November 2024 in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance doesn’t mince words: “Vaccine Certificates Must Go Digital.” The authors argue that “paper certificates present challenges” including “obstructing rapid public health responses” and being “vulnerable to errors, illegibility, delays in verification.”
The solution? Mandatory digital systems with “enhanced accuracy and security” through “centralized and interoperable databases” that “ensure vaccination records are accurate and up-to-date, supporting reliable public health interventions.”
Your papers, please. Digital version.
Why the System Won’t Fix Itself, Regulatory Capture and Institutional Rot
Here’s the uncomfortable truth that activists and reformers struggle to accept: the institutions tasked with protecting public health and civil liberties are not going to fix this system. They are the system.
We’re not dealing with good faith actors who made mistakes. We’re dealing with regulatory agencies captured by the industries they purport to regulate, international bodies accountable to no electorate, and public health bureaucracies that have discovered the intoxicating power of emergency declarations.
Consider the incentive structures:
Pharmaceutical companies profit massively from emergency use authorizations that bypass normal liability frameworks and expedite deployment while limiting long-term safety data requirements.
Surveillance technology firms win government contracts worth billions to build and maintain these systems.
Public health bureaucracies gain unprecedented power and budget increases during emergencies, creating institutional incentives to discover, declare, and perpetuate crises.
International organizations like WHO and UN agencies expand their authority and relevance by positioning themselves as indispensable coordinators of global responses.
Politicians score points by appearing to “do something” during crises while avoiding accountability for long-term consequences of emergency measures.
Nobody in this equation benefits from transparency, accountability, or actually ending the emergency. The incentives all point toward expansion, entrenchment, and permanence.
This is why our legal action in Costa Rica matters beyond Costa Rica. This is why independent, grassroots-funded litigation represents the only path to meaningful accountability.
Courts—imperfect as they are—remain the sole institution where corporations, governments, and international bodies can be forced to answer questions under oath, produce internal documents, and face actual consequences for lies. Regulatory agencies won’t hold pharmaceutical companies accountable. International bodies won’t restrain themselves. Politicians won’t limit their own emergency powers.
Only sustained legal pressure from independent advocates with nothing to lose and everything to fight for creates the possibility of change.
The Funding Reality Why We Need You Again more than ever!
When you donated to the previous Court cases, you weren’t funding a lottery ticket. You were funding the infrastructure of resistance.
People may be wondering how months passed. Did we give up? Did we fail?
Neither.
Here’s the brutal reality of taking on systemic corruption through legal channels.
You might be wondering: “Why didn’t this happen faster?”
Because the government fought us at every turn.
They delayed hearings. They withheld documents. They tried to dismiss cases on technicalities. This is what real legal warfare looks like.
We had three choices:
File the original case and let them stonewall it into oblivion
Give up when they wouldn’t cooperate
Pursue them on multiple fronts until they had nowhere left to hide
We chose option 3. That’s why your donations went further than one case filing.
Your money kept the lights on while we fought. It paid for hearings. It funded the attorney who extracted the “not a vaccine” admission. It built the evidence base that makes the next phase unstoppable.
Building the research and evidence base these cases require. We’re not filing emotional appeals. We’re filing technically precise legal arguments backed by scientific evidence, regulatory analysis, and documented policy failures. That research takes time and expertise.
Ensuring we could respond immediately when legal opportunities emerged. When the Constitutional Chamber and the other court systems here indicated we had standing and should proceed to ordinary court—that happened because we still existed as a functional organization capable of pressing the case.
Think about every advocacy group you’ve seen flame out over the past five years. The ones who raised money for a big case, filed it, ran out of funds mid-litigation, and dissolved. Their cases either got dismissed for lack of prosecution or settled for token concessions worth less than the paper they’re printed on.
We refused to become another casualty in the war of attrition.
Now we’re at the moment we’ve been building toward. The previous court has confirmed our case has merit. The government has acknowledged we deserve our day in court. The legal strategy is refined. The attorney is ready. The evidence is overwhelming.
But proceeding to ordinary court isn’t a single filing. It’s a multi-year legal battle requiring consistent monthly funding to maintain:
Dedicated legal representation throughout the entire process
Expert witness preparation and testimony fees
Document translation and certification for international evidence
Court filing fees and administrative costs
Research support for ongoing brief development
Our legal team has made clear what we’ve known all along: they won’t start without a sufficient war chest to see this through. Not because they’re mercenary. Because they’ve seen too many important cases collapse mid-stream when the money runs out, leaving everyone worse off than if they’d never filed at all.
That’s not a failure. That’s the reality of fighting institutional capture through legal channels.
Your Choice to Fund the Long War or Watch the Grid Complete
Understand what’s at stake.
The surveillance infrastructure is being built right now. The legal frameworks legitimizing it are being finalized right now. The international treaties enshrining these systems are being negotiated right now.
Five years from now, one of two scenarios will have played out:
Scenario One: The global digital identity system is fully operational, linked to health passports, integrated with surveillance infrastructure, required for travel and employment, and normalized as just “how things work.” Your children will grow up in a world where being tracked, traced, and monitored every moment of every day isn’t dystopian—it’s just Tuesday. And any attempt to challenge it will be met with, “Why didn’t anyone do something before it was too late?”
Scenario Two: Independent legal actions in jurisdictions around the world—including Costa Rica—successfully challenged the regulatory frameworks underpinning these systems. Court rulings forced governments to actually prove safety rather than assume it. International bodies were held accountable for overreach. Emergency powers were legally constrained. And the surveillance grid, while not dismantled, at least faces meaningful opposition backed by legal precedent.
Which scenario materializes depends on whether organizations like ours can maintain sustained operations.
This isn’t about one case. It’s about building and maintaining the legal war chest and operational capacity to fight this battle until we win.
Your previous donations didn’t disappear. They kept us alive long enough to reach this point. Now we’re asking you to fund the actual battle.
That’s our operational reality. That’s what it takes to employ attorneys, maintain infrastructure, prepare evidence, file motions, attend hearings, coordinate international strategy, and fight this fight properly.
If you can contribute $50 per month, you’re funding one attorney hour of legal research.
If you can contribute $100 per month, you’re covering a significant portion of one court filing.
If you can contribute $500 per month, you’re covering a substantial portion of one day of attorney time in court.
And if you can contribute $1,000+ per month, you’re essentially adopting a portion of our legal team and ensuring they can focus on winning rather than fundraising.
My name is Dustin Bryce, you can call me anytime +1 323-244-2960
This Is the Last Stand Before Digital Tyranny Becomes Permanent
We’re not being hyperbolic. We’re reading their own documents.
They’ve told us the plan: universal digital identity by 2030, health data integration, surveillance infrastructure, emergency powers frameworks, and international treaties making it all legally binding.
They’ve built the technical capacity: facial recognition on every corner, IoT devices in every home, centralized databases, AI-powered monitoring, and interoperable systems spanning borders.
They’ve created the regulatory mechanisms: emergency use listings that bypass normal safety requirements, pandemic treaties that override national sovereignty, and public health authorities with virtually unlimited power during declared emergencies.
The only missing piece is eliminating legal challenges before they gain traction.
That’s where we come in. That’s where you come in.
Every dollar you contribute is ammunition in the legal war against technocratic tyranny. Every month you sustain funding is another month we keep fighting when others have given up.
We’re not promising quick victory. We’re promising to fight until we win or until the courts shut us down permanently. And we’re asking you to fund that promise. It’s a tough job!
Your donation is tax-deductible. Interest of Justice Media Inc. is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit. But that’s not why you should give. You should give because informed consent matters. Because liberty matters. Because the ability to say “no” to government-mandated medical interventions matters. Because fighting tyranny matters.
The Choice Is Yours, But the Consequences Are Everyone’s
In 2033, when your children ask why nobody stopped the global surveillance state before it became unstoppable, what will you tell them?
That you couldn’t afford $50 a month? That you were “waiting to see what happens”? That you assumed someone else would do it?
Or will you tell them you funded the legal teams that fought like hell to preserve liberty while the window was still open?
Your choice.
We’re fighting either way. But we fight a lot more effectively with resources.
Fund us. Monthly. Generously.
This is the moment.
—Interest of Justice family
About Our Cases: Interest of Justice has been slowly gathering top evidence for a landmark case in Costa Rica challenging the legal classification of mRNA COVID-19 products and their deployment under emergency use authorizations that violated informed consent principles. The previous courts have confirmed the case has standing and must proceed to ordinary court. We are building similar cases in multiple jurisdictions as part of a coordinated international legal strategy.
Our Mission: We fight institutional corruption and regulatory capture through strategic litigation, public education, and international coordination. We receive no government funding, no pharmaceutical industry money, and no grants from captured NGOs. We exist because people like you believe accountability still matters.
Tax-Deductible Donations: Interest of Justice Media Inc. | 501(c)(3) |
“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The cost of justice is sustained funding. Both are non-negotiable.”
other related articles:
The demonic only STOP when threatened with a return to hell with those souls of humans hosting them on Earth.
JUDICIARY IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION.
Time for men to 'Man Up' and begin to expore other options to reassert 'Unalienable/Civil Rights' as defined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Johnny Midnight
@its_The_Dr
https://x.com/its_The_Dr/status/1982850360889786611
Zelensky’s offshore company Davegra has just purchased Pathfinder ranches for $79M.
The ranch is so massive it bumped Zelensky into the Top 10 U.S. landowners.
---------
@sashameetsrus
'Sooo why is the USA sending money to Ukraine again?'