Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

If a Technology was deveolped...


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#16    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:24 PM

If you dont accept this is already part of todays culture. Then Im not sure what to say except perhaps youve already accepted your every physical movement to be recorded.. I have witnessed the disappearance of my privacy and rights to do things over my years to the point where I fall on the extremist side just by holding the beliefs that I grew up with.

So yeah I think its immoral.

Or should I say whos watching the watchers.


#17    ascendant606

ascendant606

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle Earth

  • "Despite contrary belief, knowledge is not power. Rather, the application of knowledge to real world situations is power"

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:43 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 14 March 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Technologies that enable government to spy on you also enable others who have access to the technology to do the same, and we would never know for sure had such access and so would never feel private, even if we trust the government.

Would lack of such privacy harm us?  I think so, in all sorts of ways.  It's not that we have things to hide, it's that we have things we cherish to ourselves.  I like dancing with myself when no one is around -- would I do that if I might be being filmed?  What about doing facial exercises in front of a mirror?  How about talking to our fish when we feed them?  How absurd, but there it is, and it must serve us some purpose to do these pointless things.  These are seemingly trivial, but I am sure if you think about it you can think of all sorts of similar things that our lives would end up abandoning.

Further, such technologies could serve to put us at a huge disadvantage in the market.  Let's say you are buying a car, and the dealer has a complete profile on you -- what you can afford, your religion and politics, your attitude about things like safety and economy and convenience and style, etc.  How could you possibly get a good bargain by acting disinterested when the salesperson knows you better than you know yourself?  Even in the supermarket, prices could be electronically adjusted up for things you need to buy, unfair but I know it would be done.  It's done now by certain internet marketers who get profiles on people and what they typically buy online.

Of course there is the other side to this coin.  The surveilance would make us safer, from criminals and from ourselves.  It would remind us to take our blood pressure pills and maybe when we haven't had enough sleep.  It might inform certain individuals, "You need to take a shower or you will be offensive to your co-workjers."  Now that is not such a bad idea so long as it happens to others and not to me.  Obviously someone drunk would not be allowed to drive -- not bad, but think a bit about other applications that must might become damn irritating.

Well, if everyone does things they see as embarising in private, then the people (or computers) watching wouldn't care either way since they see embarasing things all day. As long as they were forced to not tell anyone not in the system so to speak of the events they see, it would be inconsequential. As for supermarket prices, in order to compete their prices would still have to be low enough for the buyer to easily buy, otherwise they would not buy.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

― Albert Einstein

#18    HDesiato

HDesiato

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 15 March 2013 - 10:38 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 March 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Kinda reminds me of "Minority Report"
Me too and also:  "A Scanner Darkly" a little. (I highly recommend that movie).

View Postascendant606, on 14 March 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

  (snip)You nailed the privacy part spot on, but if one was raised thinking that they would always be seen by the camera's and they had expectations of having privacy from others, then it would be seen as two different things. For instance, today if we were really "free" then we would be bound be no laws or restraints, but that is not so. We do have laws and restraints, and we are raised to beileve that laws are something beyond freedom. The same would apply the camera-nanobot-thingamabob invading ones privacy, it would be seen as beyond privacy.

Rather than being raised to believe that laws are something beyond freedom, I was raised to expect our laws to ensure our freedoms.  

This:
4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution - Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Say goodbye to that one.

View Postascendant606, on 14 March 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

How would their freedom of speech be prohibited? they would still be able to speak their minds (snip)

Is it unreasonable to suggest a slippery slope when every word out of your mouth can be used against you -  the right to remain silent is all that remains.



Edited by HDesiato, 15 March 2013 - 10:42 PM.


#19    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:18 AM

The best way to avoid being spied on is to not be interesting.


#20    ascendant606

ascendant606

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle Earth

  • "Despite contrary belief, knowledge is not power. Rather, the application of knowledge to real world situations is power"

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostHDesiato, on 15 March 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Me too and also:  "A Scanner Darkly" a little. (I highly recommend that movie).



Rather than being raised to believe that laws are something beyond freedom, I was raised to expect our laws to ensure our freedoms.  

This:
4th Amendment, U.S. Constitution - Search and Seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Say goodbye to that one.



Is it unreasonable to suggest a slippery slope when every word out of your mouth can be used against you -  the right to remain silent is all that remains.

Laws can be changed by the government, and since it is the govenment that would be using this then they could simply change the law, regardless of what the people want.

Laws both ensure and prohibit certain freedoms.

The point of this technology would be to stop and persecute criminals, so would it matter if they did change the fourth amendment and others? The amendment was made to make sure people could not have others accused or searched on no basis, and the technology is what would make sure there was reasonable evidance. You do not need the right to remain silent or the others if they already have irrefutalbe evidence against you.

So is a lack of priavacy and loss of rights that would end up inconsiquentail in this anyways really enough to make this bad? This would be a way to end all crime (well, most of it at least) and end all fale accusations. There are tons of cases where good, innocent, citizens are falsely accused of crimes and as a result loose their jobs, family and large amouts of time of their life. When the government realizes the mistake, the give them a small recompense in money for years of their life. This would end. Gangs murdering children and people, rape and torture, muder and the grief of the families subject to this torment would be relived. People wouln't have to live in fear anymore, and could safely walk the streets at night. So a lack of pivacy is enough to ensure this doesn't happen? Isn't it selfish to sacrifice the potential happiness of others and salvation from the grief they would otherwise endure just because you want privacy?

Lives could be saved, or privacy could be insured. Which one would you prefer?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

― Albert Einstein

#21    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 16 March 2013 - 10:01 AM

A middle road is called for.  Fires burn houses down but they also cook our food.


#22    HDesiato

HDesiato

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 16 March 2013 - 03:46 PM

View Postascendant606, on 16 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Laws can be changed by the government, and since it is the govenment that would be using this then they could simply change the law, regardless of what the people want.
The people are the government.

View Postascendant606, on 16 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Laws both ensure and prohibit certain freedoms.

Perhaps an example of a law that prohibits freedom would help to justify further loss of freedom
(The only examples I can think of would be categorized as punitive). Please elaborate.


View Postascendant606, on 16 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

The point of this technology would be to stop and persecute criminals, so would it matter if they did change the fourth amendment and others? The amendment was made to make sure people could not have others accused or searched on no basis, and the technology is what would make sure there was reasonable evidance. You do not need the right to remain silent or the others if they already have irrefutalbe evidence against you.

No trial by jury? (This subject is an interesting thought exercise.)
My main objection is that eliminating the 4th amendment places all citizens under a perpetual watch, assuming everyone as a potential criminal.
Loss of privacy is a punishment for the crime of being human.
It would be tragic for this abuse to be seen as the norm.

View Postascendant606, on 16 March 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

So is a lack of priavacy and loss of rights that would end up inconsiquentail in this anyways really enough to make this bad? This would be a way to end all crime (well, most of it at least) and end all fale accusations. There are tons of cases where good, innocent, citizens are falsely accused of crimes and as a result loose their jobs, family and large amouts of time of their life. When the government realizes the mistake, the give them a small recompense in money for years of their life. This would end. Gangs murdering children and people, rape and torture, muder and the grief of the families subject to this torment would be relived. People wouln't have to live in fear anymore, and could safely walk the streets at night. So a lack of pivacy is enough to ensure this doesn't happen? Isn't it selfish to sacrifice the potential happiness of others and salvation from the grief they would otherwise endure just because you want privacy?

Lives could be saved, or privacy could be insured. Which one would you prefer?

Either privacy or security. I don't think it's so black and white. People die in prison.
How do you propose to control emotions?
Spontaneous outbursts of rage?
Riots?
No more anger, jealousy, adultery?
Where do you draw the line?
Omnipresent security of this brand would need to prevent people from acting naturally, and since it's no problem to monitor everyone's physical presence, would it be okay to take control of their minds if that was deemed necessary?  After all, crime begins as a thought. Why not stop it in it's tracks?

We're all potential criminals anyway, how about we link the minds of the entire population of earth so we're all one big happy?
No more selfishness because there's no more "self".
Surely that would be more efficient and save even more lives.(I'm just trying to make a point, please don't agree with that.)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users