Why don't we Lojack everyone?

[Frank Hipper]

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.

Unless my health requires it, I will recieve medical procedures only under protest. Whether that's an injection, or surgery.

[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.

Unless my health requires it, I will recieve medical procedures only under protest. Whether that's an injection, or surgery.

That has nothing to do with the morality of location tracking. This is a hypothetical question of ethics; assume that the procedure is painless and completely safe, just for the sake of argument. I don't see people freaking out about their rights when they're asked to give blood samples during a physical exam.

[Frank Hipper]

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.

Unless my health requires it, I will recieve medical procedures only under protest. Whether that's an injection, or surgery.

That has nothing to do with the morality of location tracking. This is a hypothetical question of ethics; assume that the procedure is painless and completely safe, just for the sake of argument.

For the sake of argument, I would say the potential for abuse exists. Tracking devices are used to control the movements of people under house arrest, why not possible terrorists, or possible drug trafficers?
Also, would you trust any government with a device that increases their potential for control like that?

I don't see people freaking out about their rights when they're asked to give blood samples during a physical exam.

But they're already undergoing a medical procedure by having a physical done.

(edit)fixed BB tags. Blech

[His Divine Shadow]

It'd be a good idea if it was voluntary and you could turn it off if you wanted to, infact it'd probably be better if the device was off by default, but could be activated by the user when it might be needed, or if the device automatically boots up incase the heart stops or the rythm is irregular.

[MKSheppard]

This is funny:

Mike on Palladium (paraphrased)
"I don't want Microsoft tracking my every move!"

Mike on Lojacking everyone (paraphrased)
"it's good, and if you're against it, you're just using a slippery slope
fallicy!"

[MKSheppard]

What precisely could the government do with this information? In what ways could it be abused?

*walks up to Mike and Slams down the 20 pound compleat 3 volume
compendium of the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn*

Go and read the part about State Security and how they had a fucking
internal passport system allowing them to track people across the USSR
and control their movements, and then get back to me.

Oh yes, and cameras up the wazoo, allowing them to track every single
car on the Moscow throughfares to see who was in them, along with a
massive network of surveillance stations and mirrors snapping away

[InnerBrat]

There's a lot of talk here about "I don't want the government to have that kind of knowledge" without the realisation that it would be the police not the government, which in most western countries now are completely separate entities, that would have the information, and alredya have a lot of information about many of us.

Anyone who's ever been convicted of anything, for example, has their DNA fingerprint on file...

[His Divine Shadow]

There's a lot of talk here about "I don't want the government to have that kind of knowledge" without the realisation that it would be the police not the government

I'd also prefer if 911 had it, or hospitals, so if like your head exploded they would be there picking up the pieces, or saving you from something less extreme.

[MKSheppard]

Anyone who's ever been convicted of anything, for example, has their DNA fingerprint on file...

Uh......no.

My fingerprints are certainly on file, but not my DNA. Try again

[InnerBrat]

Anyone who's ever been convicted of anything, for example, has their DNA fingerprint on file...

Uh......no.

My fingerprints are certainly on file, but not my DNA. Try again

Well in the UK they do - and don't roll you eyes at me. You're not the only person who's had dealings with the police, y'know.

[MKSheppard]

Well in the UK they do - and don't roll you eyes at me. You're not the only person who's had dealings with the police, y'know.

Wow, sounds like a charming place to visit, the British Isles. Now if
I can just remove that camera that is surgically implanted up
everyone's ass upon arriving in Britain, I might go there one day...

[Robert Treder]

Maybe I'm missing something, but just where do you people go that you don't want the government to know about? Are there secret parties that I haven't been attending?

For me, all the government would be getting is "home, home, work, work, work, work, store, home, home, home" with 'work' replaced by 'school' some days. I'm comfortable with sharing this information with anybody.
Now, I'm open to hearing some other explanations, but it seems to me that the only reason one would have to fear such a measure is if they were engaging in illegal activities, or planned on engaging in illegal activities sometime in the future.

And Shep, why is it bad for the government to have your DNA on file?

[InnerBrat]

Maybe I'm missing something, but just where do you people go that you don't want the government to know about? Are there secret parties that I haven't been attending?

Suggestions include AA meetings; perfectly legal but embarrassing fetish clubs; your mistress; - more things that would affect your election prospects more than anything else (if you're thinking of standing for office)

Some people seem to think that the Government can do more with a DNA analysis than just identify you.

[Robert Treder]

If you're going to run for office, don't do stupid-ass things. Nobody running for public office has my sympathy anyways.

[MKSheppard]

Maybe I'm missing something, but just where do you people go that you don't want the government to know about? Are there secret parties that I haven't been attending?

Maybe we don't like the government poking it's nose into stuff it has no
damn business poking it's nose into

And Shep, why is it bad for the government to have your DNA on file?

I'm paranoid as hell. And besides, all they need is a fingerprint.

[Gandalf]

Assuming that the doohickeys actually work, which is a pretty big assumption.

It's kind of a hypothetical scenario. I'm not actually saying we've achieved "Demolition Man" capability yet. We don't have the three seashells.

What the hell is up with those seashells anyway?

You don't know how to use the three seashells?

I personally have no real beef with the government being able to track my movements, corporations I'd rather not have them know though. Perhaps just for ex- cons?

[Glass Pearl Player]

Well, how large could an implanted transponder be? What range would it have, and how long would its power supply last? How would one implement such a system in the first place? Remember, anything you put into a car can be connected to the battery and has thus plenty of energy, but an implanted transponder? And how much would this system cost?

Let me have a look at the amount of data such a system would generate if it were to trace everybody's movements 24 hours a day. For simplicity's sake, assume the USA is a square, 1000 by 1000 km, inhabited by 300 Million people, everyone with such a tag.
We'll need about 30 bit or 4 bytes to give everybody an unique ID code. Allocating 2 bytes or 16 bit per coordinate gives us about 15 m spatial resolution, leading to the simple conclusion that a single position fix of a single person requires 8 bytes of data storage and bandwith. Resolution in time could be, say, 5 minutes, so per day we have 86.4e9 position fixes, requiring 691.2e9 bytes of data storage and a bandwith of 8e6 bytes per second. Bandwith seems trivial to me, but now we have a whooping 650 GB of raw data per day (maybe only half that much, if we don't record each single fix, but store data for each person separately. Now think about storing that for -say- one year and we are up to 231 Terabytes of data. At this point, one might cry in joy and sing: "That's so much data, noone can wade through all that bytes and abuse them to his own sinister ends!"
Well, there are three objections to that:
A) If it's too much data to analyse for malign purposes, why isn't it to much to analyse for begnin purposes?
B) Data filtering. Whoever has some bad intent, knows at least what he wants to know, and will disregard any data not useful to him/her/them.
C) It's only a matter of time and patience. And ever increasing processor speed.

Surely, such or a similar system may have benefits. A system where the individual can switch the signal off and on at will or a sort of emergency beacon might even remove many possibilities af abuse and reduce system requirements. But if the system were on/off instead of emergency beacon, I see a problem ahead. It isn't a slippery slope, but a slope nonetheless, and the problem I see ahead are people putting grease on that slope:

Assume such a tracking system had been implemented, with an on/off switch on the transponder, and having a transponder would be voluntary. Wouldn't then some people say: "Well, it's such a great system, it would be even better if everyone had it!" and start persuading others to get a transponder too, until everyone had it? I'm sure there would be such people, and there's little wrong with it. But then comes the real problem, the grease on the slope: People who think that everyone should have the transponder running 24/7 because
-if your really need it sometime, it's already on
-it would make the policemen's work much easier if every honest citicen leaves it always on
-we all are honest citicens and have absolutly nothing to hide
-(some more reasons).

This could maybe lead to a situation of political correctness, where one gets shunned for not having his transponder running 24/7 ."Well Mr. XY, we want our employees to be honest citicens. We don't employ people who turn their transponders off as if they were going to unrightful places!" ( If you object to that scenario because you don't think that companies will have access to that data, replace "company" with "government". If you don't think that the government will have access to that data, that seems wishful thinking to me.)
Well, I admit, it isn't a slippery slope, but that won't prevent people from putting grease on it.

Well, Mike wants us to say WHY we would be unhappy to be tracked 24/7. My answer:
Such a system is much too tempting a toy for anyone who coud have use for its data. I consider it such a big temptation that I would trust nobody not to abuse it. Not even myself.

Bottom line of that long post:
Emergency beacons: Yes, maybe.
Anything which generates more data: Either unnecessary, too expensive, or too tempting to be abused. And yes, whatever can be used, can be abused.

[Steve]

Most of the objecters, you'll find, are those with an innate mistrust in the State.

Hence why we have strange bedfellows like NapoleonGH and Shep arguing on the same side despite their political differences.

And yes, I don't trust the State either. I've studied too much history to ever trust any State apparatus, even our own. Power corrupts.

BTW, innerbrat, police are a part of the government. City police are administered and funded by city government, county police (sheriffs in same states) by county government, and so on. What made you think police aren't a part of government?

[Lagmonster]

What amuses the crap out of all the various Tom, Dick, and Don't-Spy-On-Me-Harry types is the fact that the objections seem to flow from a general fear, distrust, or belief in potential harm that could come from it.

Whenever new technology is invented, someone finds a way to kill, destroy, or illegally make money with it. The important thing to consider is: What methods have we undertaken to PREVENT such abuse from happening? I can't think offhand of any form of tech - video recording technology, information networks, combustion engines, whatever - that have downsides and potential evils that are being allowed to run unchecked and rampant across the globe, spreading harm and misery to all.

Many are quick to screech that the government, corporations, or whatever will use this system against you. What you haven't considered is: Can such a system be implemented with safeguards against abuse? I mean, right now, anybody who really, really wanted to could figure out everything about you, including where you are, with whom, and doing what. It's not that hard - ask anyone who's hired a private dick to trail a wife or husband suspected of cheating. So the tech makes it easier to do something already possible. Whoopity-fuck. Are there REALLY more downsides than upsides to this?

[Peregrin Toker]

Are there REALLY more downsides than upsides to this?

It might cause some medical problems if you have some machinery implanted in you - for example, if you are in the vicinity of something which interferes with the lojack chip. Also, the fact that people are uncomfortable with being "spyed on" may contribute to general civil unrest in periods of uprisings. And history shows that we have pretty bad experience with authorities having so much power over the populace.

[Darth Wong]

This is funny:

Mike on Palladium (paraphrased)
"I don't want Microsoft tracking my every move!"

There is no benefit to me or society to counteract the loss of privacy, and quite frankly, the knowledge of everything I read and watch is more private to me than my geographical location. The free flow of information is crucial to democracy; the ability to move about without anyone knowing your geographical location is not.

Mike on Lojacking everyone (paraphrased)
"it's good, and if you're against it, you're just using a slippery slope
fallicy!"

Isn't that true? So far, everyone against it has argued that "the government might abuse it!" When asked precisely what damage the government could do with this information, only vague mumbling is heard. Moreover, the ENORMOUS benefits (massive reduction in crime, quick resolution of child abduction cases, instant dispatch of paramedics to heart attack victims, etc) are simply ignored. Everything in life is a trade-off between benefits and cost; this is no exception. But in a black/white thinker's mind, if there's any cost at all (even if they can't really explain why it would be so bad), then the idea goes out the window.

[Peregrin Toker]

Isn't that true? So far, everyone against it has argued that "the government might abuse it!" When asked precisely what damage the government could do with this information, only vague mumbling is heard. Moreover, the ENORMOUS benefits (massive reduction in crime, quick resolution of child abduction cases, instant dispatch of paramedics to heart attack victims, etc) are simply ignored. Everything in life is a trade-off between benefits and cost; this is no exception. But in a black/white thinker's mind, if there's any cost at all (even if they can't really explain why it would be so bad), then the idea goes out the window.

Isn't this slightly hypocritical considering that you on your essay about Communism argues against state seizure of all means of transportation because "the state seizure of transportations would represent a vast increase in government power." Yet, it also has enormous benefits - because there are no automobiles and motorcycles on the road and therefore fewer vehicles in general, traffic accidents are much less likely to happen. It also reduces pollution significantly, since many gasoline-powered vehicles can be replaced by electrically powered trams.

[NecronLord]

About the health implant: Isn't this a little bit of a redundant point? It doesn't need to actively transmit when you aren't in need of medical attention, and I'd like to see them find a system that is behaving in an inert manner (and if they can they can find you by tracking your watch so it isn't worth bothering about)

As for cars... I'm a believer in the Robocop school of car crime prevention

[Peregrin Toker]

As for cars... I'm a believer in the Robocop school of car crime prevention

And that is?

(Sorry, it's months ago since I last saw "Robocop")

[Ted C]

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.

I thought I gave several examples. Or did you not think them valid?