Why don't we Lojack everyone?

[Straha]

I think it's a great idea, but I should also think it ought to be voluntary, because forcing something into the body of a person that he/she does not desire is quite a violation of the right to privacy, among other things.

But if it's voluntary and people choose not to have them implanted it raises another problem. What if a non-chipped person kills a person that has the implant? Unless the victim's implant can somehow ID the killer or the authorities can be on the scene instantly, it would still be a bitch to track down the killer and we're back to where we are now. We'd still need to use detective skills to piece everything together and somehow track the killer down.

But it makes things simpler in that we can find out where the person was killed, and when he was killed. With these thigns modern day detectives and technology can get a good idea what happened, and who did it via DNA, Finger Prints, or what have you. And if there is an auto-matic alert telling police when a chipped person has been killed, or harmed well then the polic can get to the scene almost immeadietly, collect all samples fresh, and possibly catch the killer at or near the scene.

And if a non-chipped person gets killed we'd have a similar problem, except in this case no one would even know about the killing. And if the crime involves only non-chipped people then things get real fun and once again we're back to where we are today. I'd also think that the lawyers will be going apeshit with laws concerning the rights of chipped vs. non-chipped people, and no good is going to come out of that.

We'd know of the crime, because the person would disapear, and would be searched for and the body potentially found. And if we use Mr. Wong's O.J. Scenario where O.J. has the chip and the vics don't we could find out after tracking O.J.'s movements wether or not he did it. We could use the same thing in times where we have circumstantial evidence on a chipped person, and find out immeadietly, without harm to the person wether or not the person couild of performed the act in question.


Here's the tricky bit though, the people most likley to commit the crimes, are also the people least likley to have the chip implanted, meaning that unless the government offers incentives for people to sign up ($$$$) you will mostly get elderly alzheimer patients, or people who really have nothing to lose by getting the chip.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I would not support such an idea if it where mandatory. I feel it is reasonable to not be under watch from my gov't at all times. Its not that Im grinding up endangered sea otters in my tub, but I think the system is too open to abuse.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

For those unfamiliar with the name, Lojack is a theft prevention and recovery system for cars in which a transmitter inside the car can be used by the police to track its location at all times.

In "Demolition Man", they had subdermal implants which the police could use to track the locations and life signs of every person in the city. Police notification of a murder was nearly instantaneous, and detective work was vastly simplified (imagine if OJ Simpson had such a device in him on the night of Nicole's murder).

Of course, this was derided as "fascist" in the movie, and is universally derided as such when the movie is discussed among movie fans. But what, precisely, is wrong with it? Is it an invasion of privacy? It's not as if they have cameras pointing into your bedroom; they only know your geographical location. Is it such a huge secret where you happen to be at any given time? What's the big harm?

Think of the lives that could be saved from instant dispatch of paramedics to heart-attack victims, for example, or the quick resolutions to child abduction cases, not to mention countless other crimes. Why would it be so bad?

We occasionally hear similar arguments about cameras facing public areas; is it really such an intrusion into your privacy for people to see you walking down a public street? When you're in your home, the only thing the police would know is that you're in your home; they wouldn't be watching you masturbate in the shower.

Thoughts?

It would only be a good idea if the government forced everybody to participate in the program. The instant a baby is born, for example, just after they cut the umbilical cord, they'd implant the chip. Or, in order for someone to enter school, or get a driver's license or any other essential government service, they have to get the chip implanted.

Of course, you'd have all sorts of civil rights folks filing lawsuits left and right clamoring about how it would effectively make the 'right' to privacy completely meaningless . . . but as many have said before, in today's society, there is no such thing as privacy. If I just knew somebody's name and the city they lived in, I could, for a small fee (and not even that), find out if they've been keeping up on their housing payments, who they work for, if they pay their taxes, who their relatives are, their entire educational history, and if they have a criminal record. And I'm just some poor average schmuck.

So really, there's no good argument against implanting locator beacons in every person.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I can't imagine being in a place that I didn't want the government to know about. It's not like I get a hard on by thinking about how much the government doesn't know about me.

I don't see any real disadvantages to the system.

Ohh so just because you have nothing to fear from the current government right now you intend to assume that no one has anything legitimate that they wish to hide from the government?

Remember the big controversy with the secret ballot. Basically until the secret ballot you were told "vote for y, or we break your arms" didnt harm anyone who would vote for Y anyway, but what if you wanted to vote for X?

Now take it in this concept, I am an anti-war person, and i attend rallies which later the government uses to connect me to an anti-war act of terrorism, when my only connection is being anti-war. Basically this is the argument that I dont trust the government not to abuse this data and use it to quite dissent, imagine the mcarthy witch hunt if the government knew exactly where people were "we know that on June 5 of 1943 you were within 5 feet of John Doe, known communist so, are you now or have you ever been a commie?" It would allow for the next McCarthy to do even more damage to liberty. IE ascroft.

Except that if an Ashcroft or a McCarthy were digging up the dirt on the enemies of the United States of Amerika, it would be a trivial thing for somebody to dig up the dirt on them. The Big Brother ID system is a double-edged sword, it can cut both ways. That is one of the things that would minimize the abuse potential of such a system.

[thecreech]

I would not support such an idea if it where mandatory. I feel it is reasonable to not be under watch from my gov't at all times. Its not that Im grinding up endangered sea otters in my tub, but I think the system is too open to abuse.

Telemarketers(sp) they pay money for the system locater. They know when you get home then BAM. you receive a flood of calls from them because they know exactly when you walk in the door. I could see some abuse that way

[Sea Skimmer]

I hope you're kidding.

I'm not.

However, if they have the ability to track vital signs, the implant could be programmed to deactivate the financial parts of it in the event of theft.

Yea, and a hacker would come up with a way to do that, a little device
that would be held over the implant to make it generate false readings
as they cut it out

Must save for reuse in fiction...

And I'm against both Wong and Sheppards ideas. Back to bricks of Specie for me.

[Sea Skimmer]

Except that if an Ashcroft or a McCarthy were digging up the dirt on the enemies of the United States of Amerika, it would be a trivial thing for somebody to dig up the dirt on them. The Big Brother ID system is a double-edged sword, it can cut both ways. That is one of the things that would minimize the abuse potential of such a system.

Except such people are generally in a position to have there records altered, hidden or destroyed.

[Darth Wong]

There is a shell game in many of these criticisms of the idea. Rather than show how the idea itself is bad or that it violates the privacy of some vital information (your geographical location is just a drop in the bucket of what corporations and the government already know about you), they argue that the benign information could potentially be misused, citing nightmare scenarios in which Ashcroft throws people in jail for attending certain meetings.

The problem is that this is really just a variant upon the slippery slope fallacy; A does not cause B. Does A make B possible? Yes, but by that token, keyboards make hacking possible, so we should outlaw keyboards. The fact is that criminalizing association ITSELF should be fought, and for good reason. But the mere fact that a Lojack chip would make it easier to prosecute people for criminal association AFTER it has been made illegal in defiance of constitution rights is a red herring; it is like saying that computers make it much easier for corporations and governments to track your activities, so they should be outlawed.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The problem is that this is really just a variant upon the slippery slope fallacy; A does not cause B. Does A make B possible? Yes, but by that token, keyboards make hacking possible, so we should outlaw keyboards. The fact is that criminalizing association ITSELF should be fought, and for good reason. But the mere fact that a Lojack chip would make it easier to prosecute people for criminal association AFTER it has been made illegal in defiance of constitution rights is a red herring; it is like saying that computers make it much easier for corporations and governments to track your activities, so they should be outlawed.

Computers make it easier to track people but that is not their primary purpose. I can use my computer all day long unplugged from the internet and only someone scanning from the street would know. Whereas, Lojacking citizens is meant to monitor them from the start. Dont you think there a bit of a difference?

[Darth Wong]

Computers make it easier to track people but that is not their primary purpose. I can use my computer all day long unplugged from the internet and only someone scanning from the street would know. Whereas, Lojacking citizens is meant to monitor them from the start. Dont you think there a bit of a difference?

No, because mere location tracking is not intrinsically harmful. Criminalizing people for associating with undesirables is harmful. You are trying to use the latter to criticize the former.

[kojikun]

Telemarketers(sp) they pay money for the system locater. They know when you get home then BAM. you receive a flood of calls from them because they know exactly when you walk in the door. I could see some abuse that way

I thought they already did that..

[Darth Wong]

Telemarketers(sp) they pay money for the system locater. They know when you get home then BAM. you receive a flood of calls from them because they know exactly when you walk in the door. I could see some abuse that way

I thought they already did that..

Yeah, they just wait for suppertime, when you're probably going to be home.

Keep in mind, this information is not like a credit record or phone number or some similar kind of data where "once it's out, it's out". If it's illegal to monitor the network unless you're a government agency, simply acquiring information on a one-time basis is useless; they would need constant (illegal) datafeed in order to make use of the location tracker in the manner being described, and that's much tricker than nabbing a static piece of information like a phone number or E-mail address.

[Nova Andromeda]

There is a shell game in many of these criticisms of the idea. Rather than show how the idea itself is bad or that it violates the privacy of some vital information (your geographical location is just a drop in the bucket of what corporations and the government already know about you), they argue that the benign information could potentially be misused, citing nightmare scenarios in which Ashcroft throws people in jail for attending certain meetings.

The problem is that this is really just a variant upon the slippery slope fallacy; A does not cause B. Does A make B possible? Yes, but by that token, keyboards make hacking possible, so we should outlaw keyboards. The fact is that criminalizing association ITSELF should be fought, and for good reason. But the mere fact that a Lojack chip would make it easier to prosecute people for criminal association AFTER it has been made illegal in defiance of constitution rights is a red herring; it is like saying that computers make it much easier for corporations and governments to track your activities, so they should be outlawed.

--What you don't seem to get is that before you impliment a system with such power you should make sure it won't be used to screw us all for the next thousand years. I would have figured an engineer would understand this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the people lojack system won't screw us before your system is implimented. When you bring about the perfect government we can talk. Until then I don't need you giving Ashcroft and the neo-cons. even more power to create a strong theocracy in the U.S.

[Darth Wong]

What you don't seem to get is that before you impliment a system with such power you should make sure it won't be used to screw us all for the next thousand years.

The reactionary speaks. Good thing you never had the ability to fuck up technological progress in the past; the THEORETICAL abuses that someone like you could dream up for any and all of the major technological advances of the last century would have kept us riding horseback.

I would have figured an engineer would understand this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the people lojack system won't screw us before your system is implimented.

Bullshit. The system does not directly cause any INTRINSIC, OBJECTIVE HARM. That is all we need to demonstrate. Arguing that an abusive government with no respect for human rights could take advantage of it is ridiculous. Such a government will abuse any and all technology available to it; this does not mean we must refrain from inventing said technology.

When you bring about the perfect government we can talk. Until then I don't need you giving Ashcroft and the neo-cons. even more power to create a strong theocracy in the U.S.

And how does geo-location tracking somehow "create a strong theocracy in the U.S."? Where did you learn your basic principles of logic? The Ralph Nader school of slippery slopes and bogeymen?

[kojikun]

Yeah, they just wait for suppertime, when you're probably going to be home.

The US gov is setting up a new nationwide no call list. Its amazing.

Keep in mind, this information is not like a credit record or phone number or some similar kind of data where "once it's out, it's out". If it's illegal to monitor the network unless you're a government agency, simply acquiring information on a one-time basis is useless; they would need constant (illegal) datafeed in order to make use of the location tracker in the manner being described, and that's much tricker than nabbing a static piece of information like a phone number or E-mail address.

Yeah. Very good points. I'm much inclined to get one of these monitors, should they become reality. I'm not too worried about evil spying and shit.

[Nova Andromeda]

What you don't seem to get is that before you impliment a system with such power you should make sure it won't be used to screw us all for the next thousand years.

The reactionary speaks. Good thing you never had the ability to fuck up technological progress in the past; the THEORETICAL abuses that someone like you could dream up for any and all of the major technological advances of the last century would have kept us riding horseback.

I would have figured an engineer would understand this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the people lojack system won't screw us before your system is implimented.

Bullshit. The system does not directly cause any INTRINSIC, OBJECTIVE HARM. That is all we need to demonstrate. Arguing that an abusive government with no respect for human rights could take advantage of it is ridiculous. Such a government will abuse any and all technology available to it; this does not mean we must refrain from inventing said technology.

When you bring about the perfect government we can talk. Until then I don't need you giving Ashcroft and the neo-cons. even more power to create a strong theocracy in the U.S.

And how does geo-location tracking somehow "create a strong theocracy in the U.S."? Where did you learn your basic principles of logic? The Ralph Nader school of slippery slopes and bogeymen?

--Who said anything about stopping technological progress!?! I'm arguing against implimenting it! We already have the technology to lojack everyone. In fact, my cat has the next best thing between her shoulder blades. As for your other point, your system woud give the gov. vast new power to track people and collect information about them. It is a fact the the neo-cons. are in power and would like nothing more than to turn the U.S. into a strong theocracy. These are the same people that think torture is a justified form of interigation and that citizens can be locked up in a military brig with no charges and no coucil for eternity on the say so of one man. Your system would give them yet another powerful tool to track and identify their opponents (and historical precident shows they will use it) and bring about their desire to creat a Christian nation. I'm not willing to give them this power. If they are kicked out of office and our civil liberties are better protected then we can discuss implimenting your system.

[Yogi]

The tracking chip stinks of Palladium. A far safer method would be a device that you would voulentarily activate as a sort of "Help me! I'm in trouble!" kind of thing.

Assuming the Constitution is quietly put away here, implementing ANY sort of method of the Government gaining knowledge on us is apparently OK, since we will cheerfully assume that the Government is not going to abuse its power ever. Personally, I like to asume that not all men are angels and that there is a point in which privacy and potential for abuse outweigh convinience (see Mcro$oft). That would be the point of the Constitution, to protect us from Government stupidity.

While any government could be evil and corrupt, things like tracking chips will make it eaier for them. Jus because they already have a measure of control, doesn't mean that we shouldn't make it difficult for them to abuse their power.

[kojikun]

The tracking chip stinks of Palladium. A far safer method would be a device that you would voulentarily activate as a sort of "Help me! I'm in trouble!" kind of thing.

Thats called GPS 911 which theyre already working on.

While any government could be evil and corrupt, things like tracking chips will make it eaier for them. Jus because they already have a measure of control, doesn't mean that we shouldn't make it difficult for them to abuse their power.

Not really. Physical location is of no importance other then for snipers, and killing you isnt that important. Not that they cant find you with relative ease ANYWAY since they know where you live, workd, shop, get gas, go to school, etc. The lojack just tells them how far from these places you are.

[SirNitram]

Should we develop the technology? Sure. Having another toy in our chest of many toys is always good.

Should we make this 'chip' availiable for voluntary implants, and for certain jobs(The military, for example), requisite? Sure. Lots of people could benefit. If it was a job-required one and you retired, you could get it removed.

Make it required? I disagree. I don't want anyone knowing where Tevar and I make out, and as much as some people might call it paranoia, no, I don't trust fucking Ashcroft. I'm an immigrant whose been waiting a year for his Green Card renewal. If that's paranoia.. Fine, I'm paranoid.

[NapoleonGH]

Fact is mike every other time such kinds of info became more available it WAS misused by the government, the NY state government just recently began to try to use ezpass data to arrest people for speeding and it is used to establish someone's position when a crime took place already.

[RedImperator]

If it's done voluntarily, I have no problem with it, especially for children. A significant number of people WOULD get it voluntarily, and that by itself would deter crime. It's like states with concealed carry firearms permits. Not everyone has one, maybe not even a majority has one--but you have no way of knowing WHO has one, and if you pick the wrong guy, you're fucked and fucked hard.

But an involuntary program? No, no, a thousand times no. This isn't like cameras in public areas, where you have no right to privacy--the only real difference between a camera and a cop walking down the street is that a camera's data can be stored forever and can be evaluated objectively, whereas a cop can forget stuff and only he has access to the original recording. An involuntary tracking program violates a person's right to refuse to have something done to his body without permission.

And considering the War on Drugs and my position on same, you can't tell me umbiquitious law enforcement would never be used to violate someone's civil rights, because the law is already being used to violate hundreds of thousands of people's civil rights already.

[Frank Hipper]

Do I want the government to know exactly where I am 24/7? Fuck no! And getting an implant to make it possible would be even more abhorrent. Surveillance of that magnitude is an invasion of privacy.

[Darth Wong]

Fact is mike every other time such kinds of info became more available it WAS misused by the government, the NY state government just recently began to try to use ezpass data to arrest people for speeding and it is used to establish someone's position when a crime took place already.

So? In case people didn't get it the first time around, you can't make some vague-ass claim of harm, nor can you make some ridiculously unreasonable demand like "prove there is no possible way in the universe that it can be abused", as Nova did.

What precisely could the government do with this information? In what ways could it be abused? Only one example has been brought forth so far, and that's arresting and charging people for attending communist meetings. This is so far from feasibility and so easily replaced by a simple police surveillance operation that it's not even funny, and hardly represents a grand new opportunity for encroachment upon civil liberties.

So try again: precisely HOW would the government be able to use the knowledge of your geographical location to harm you, take away your rights, etc? So far I haven't heard jack shit except for "ummmm, I'm not comfortable with it" and that ridiculous communist party nonsense. It's not as if they're watching you take a shit on the toilet; all they would know is your geo-location, which is quite frankly an insignificant piece of information compared to all of the shit they ALREADY know about you.

[Frank Hipper]

The fact that I am not comfortable with recieving an implant that tracks my location isn't enough?

[Darth Wong]

The fact that I am not comfortable with recieving an implant that tracks my location isn't enough?

In this forum, one is expected to be able to explain WHY he feels something is wrong, rather than just saying that it feels wrong.