According to a repeated claim made by a Japanese national – if not nationals – a cable internet connection in the following location was changed to a wireless connection only.
Less than a week after the first internet access through the wireless connection, the router was changed to the following one.
The code which is required to sign in to the presumably private wireless network is visible on the other side of the device.
Soon after the new router was installed, a customer of one of the individuals living in the house allegedly thought that something about the new router was “amazing” (すごい). The person living in the house briefly removed the router, took it to the location of the business with the intention of showing it to the customer and brought it back later.
On the following day after the installation of the new router I received the following error message indicating that someone else was using the same IP address as my computer in the presumably private wireless network with presumably no other users.
Is there indeed something about the new router that could reasonably be regarded as being “amazing” rather than, for instance, a potentially successful attempt to take advantage of a blatantly mind controlled person to gain access to someone else’s data? As usual, at least some of the words coming out of the mind controlled person’s mouth are denying that the router was ever shown to anyone and claiming that showing the access code to the presumably private wireless network to someone else and/or subsequent error messages indicating that someone else might be using the same wireless network would not matter in any case.
It turned out that a cable connection can, after all, also be used. Might one of the potential morals of the story be that, as potentially habitual, pathological liars and worse, a foreigner in Japan (or any independently-minded person in Finland, for that matter) should never trust whatever might or might not come out from the locals’ mouths, no matter how many times and how forcefully stated, and always be open to the possibility of acting contrary to the locals’ alleged instructions even in cases where the likelihood of their incorrectness might be lower as the local alleged or self-declared “authorities” are known to participate in, promote, facilitate or overlook deception, dishonesty, crime or human rights violations through, among other things, external mind control of their “own” alleged citizens? Might not stating the matter any less explicitly be an insult to the victims’ autonomy, cognitive privacy and right of individual self-determination which should be restored immediately and completely rather than the other way round – essentially appeasing a criminal, terrorist, cartelist, cultist, conspiratorial or fascist artificial intelligence system and/or its human overseers under the pretext that some of its/their crime, terrorism, cartelism, cultism, conspiracies or fascism might be channelled through externally controlled human bodies whose legitimate owners themselves might well in some cases be reluctant to allow their bodies to be used as intermediaries for any other purpose except telling the perpetrators to f**k off until their eventual liberation?