Saru Posted July 11, 2004 #1 Share Posted July 11, 2004 This is a pre-organised formal debate, and will be between HunterKiller2001 and The_Hunter. The question being asked here will be : Is the development of high tech surveillence invading your life ? The_Hunter will be debating against, while HunterKiller2001 will be debating for the idea that high tech surveillence could be invading people's lives. You will each be allowed to make 5 posts, as well as an introduction and conclusion. Good luck to you both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hunter Posted July 12, 2004 #2 Share Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) Thank you SaRuMaN. Opening Statement My arugment is declaring that the development isn't invading your life, but protecting it. The development of High Tech surviellence is an upcoming revelolution in the world of technonlogy. Maybe it started during the Cold War or after 9/11, no-one is sure. What I can tell you, it saves lifes. I was doing some reasearch on the high tech cameras and came up with this: Late one autumn day at the aquatic centre in Ancenis, France, something went quietly, horribly wrong. With two well-kept pools and teaching facilities, the centre serves as a modern swimming hole for an entire sector of historic Brittany, attracting 150,000 French villagers a year. An 18-year-old boy named Jean- Francois LeRoy was a regular, coming often in early evnenings to swim laps in a 25 metre pool. Drowning are often difficult to spot; they are rarely the splashy, failing events depicted on telivision. Most are near-silent episodes where the victim quickly sinks out of view On this particular day maybe the lifegaurds weren't paying as close attention as they shuld have been. Certainly they believed the trim, athletic LeRoy was not a high-risk swimmer. But on this evening, LeRoy was practising apenea swimming- testing how far he could swim underwater on one breath- and at some point, without making anty visible or audible disturbance on the water's surface, he blacked out. The gaurds failed to notice as he stopped swimming and decended to the bottom of the deep end of the pool. With his arms crossed over his head and his feet twitching, he was unconscious and drowning. It would take him as little as four minutes to die. Although the human lifegaurds watching the pool wereoblivious, 12 large machine eyes deep underwater were watching the whole thing taking notice. Just nine months earlier, the centre had installed a state-of-the-art electronic surviellence system called Poseidon, a network of cameras that feeds a computer programmed to use a set of complex mathematical algorithms to distingush between normal and distressed swimming. Poseidon covers a pool's entire swimming areaand can distingush among blurry reflections, shadows and actual swimmers. It can also tell when real swimers are moving in a way that they're not supposed to. When the computer detects a possible problem, it instantly activates a beeper to alert lifegaurds and displays the exact incident location on a monitor. The rest is up to the humans above water. Sixteen seconds after Poseidon noticed the large, sinking lump that was Jean-Francois LeRoy, lifegaruds had LeRoy out of the pool and were initiacting CPR.he started breathing again. After one night in the local hospital, he was released with no permanent damage. Poseidon-and more precisely, the handful of French mathematicians who devised it- saved his life. Machines like Poseidon will redefine how we live. Think of your life before the answering machine, the ATM, e-mail. Think of your grandparent's lives before the telivision and the airplane. THink of your great-grandoparents' lives before the telephone. Akll told, the shift will be that substantial. I hope that is good enough, because I've got alot more! Edited July 12, 2004 by The Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterkiller2001 Posted July 12, 2004 #3 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Opening statement Surveillence is everywhere you look. Almost everything the average person does throughout the day is in some logged or recorded. There's cases that pop up very often of Surveillence equiptment used for the wrong purpose. From car tracking systems, to cameras, Surveillence is one of the worst things to ever happen to you privacy. And i can prove it. This is all I'll say for now.. as i want to save the real fight for the actual debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hunter Posted July 20, 2004 #4 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Protection aginst terrorisim is vital and is a key role in the development of surveillence. At the moment, scientisits are trying to improve on instruments that detect radioactive substances aswell biological. The safety of citizens is vital today aginst the oncoming attacks from terrorists. I'm sorry that reply was short, but I'm poretty pre-occupied at the moment, so be patient! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterkiller2001 Posted July 24, 2004 #5 Share Posted July 24, 2004 (edited) well, after giving my opponent a few days to edit his post to something relevent, (see.. i can be nice) I'll continue.. We've been able to track nuclear material via satallite for years.. it's nothing new. nor is the creation of a system that scans for Biological or nuclear materials considered "surveillence" in the tradional sense of security cameras, bugs, and phone tapping. The topic of this debate is whether high tech surveillence is invading our lives, and You've yet to even provide an example of a system that COULD invade your life. A system containded in a pool to see who's drowning is in no way a threat to anyone's privacy. A system that scans for radiation isn't going to be able to tell me who i slept with last night.. Your dodging the bullet with this debate.. Edit: And please don't plaguerize (sp?) .. here's the link for a vast majority of your (or national geographics) opening argument. linky Now look.. we've wasted half the debate.. Anyway.. The fear of microchipping the population has existed for sometime.. while it has it's legitimate uses, the possiblities of abuse are so high, I can't believe the Idea is going into effect in some countries.. This is a primary example of how surveillence is invading privacy. Edited July 25, 2004 by hunterkiller2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hunter Posted July 30, 2004 #6 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I needed an example. You are not even debating, you're just making my statement seem better as you have'nt written anything to backup your side of the story. Read about what you're debating about or forfit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnSide Posted July 30, 2004 #7 Share Posted July 30, 2004 The Hunter, please continue with the debate. If you feel HK2001 is debating poorly, then he will get a poor score from the Judges. That's for them to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurnSide Posted July 31, 2004 #8 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Well unfortunately i'm going to have to close this debate down. The Hunter has been disqualified for copying large amounts of text word for word from another web site and using it in his debate without any credit to where it came from. hunterkiller2001 wins by default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts