Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ascendant606

If a Technology was deveolped...

22 posts in this topic

This is NOT a conspiracy, there is no such technology today being used like this. This is all hypothetical, so please no crazy conspiracy remarks

What if in the future a technology was developed that could see everything and was viewed by hired workers. Would it be moral for the government to use this technology? Whether you think yes or , how dnoo you think it would be run? Would there be local divisions of "watchers", and larger divisions and so forth depending on the severity of the case? Or do you think another system would be more affective.

If they did, it would allow them to anticipate terrorist attacks, stop crime and solve all criminal and court cases. There would no wrongly convicted criminals, no abused members of society and no bullies. This would also provide jobs for the people watching the videos,

On the other hand, if the government was corrupt false evidence could be put in place, things could be ignored and someone high enough could do almost anything they want. Also, there would be no privacy but what does it matter if they watch everyone?

Do you think it is moral or not?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need Jame bond 007!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is NOT a conspiracy, there is no such technology today being used like this. This is all hypothetical

Yeah right...pfffft. were already being watched and yes they have paid workers to watch us. Some are even robotic for the cheap labor. You have not heard of face recognition CCTV cameras in your neighborhood ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah right...pfffft. were already being watched and yes they have paid workers to watch us. Some are even robotic for the cheap labor. You have not heard of face recognition CCTV cameras in your neighborhood ?

Even if that is true, it wouldn't be quite what I was talking about. I was thinking more on a more specific level where everything was analyzed and seen, even on private property. As I mentioned (or at least I meant to) this is not possible in our current day and age due to government budget, and laws against violating private property.

Edited by ascendant606

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a government that deprives citizens of privacy is serving their best interests.(so that's a no on the morality question)

This sounds to me like a prison scenario.

I imagine the high technology needed could be run with everyone connected via GPS to a computer program.

I would wonder, 'who watches the watchers'?

Perhaps medical nanobots could also function as motion capture via the GPS, making cameras unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Even if that is true, it wouldn't be quite what I was talking about. I was thinking more on a more specific level where everything was analyzed and seen, even on private property. As I mentioned (or at least I meant to) this is not possible in our current day and age due to government budget, and laws against violating private property.

There are no Laws using tech to spy on Americans anymore. Satellites can read your license plate in your driveway and drones from 14k ft can detect heat sigs inside your home. They track movement of people with tech and can using satellites. They want to be abl;e to tell if a person is carrying a concealed weapon from drones at altitude or space satellites. I think your theoretical image is behind the times.

There is an active resistence to this tech. As like you said its an invasion of privacy but it is real today.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9UTgmyDFWo&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

Sponsored by DARPA go figure.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Be prepared not misinformed...........

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the novel "1984" by George Orwell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology already exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technology already exists.

It may exist, but it is not put in use to the extent I was talking about.

Be prepared not misinformed...........

Wha....? if your talking about my knowledge of technology, I am perfectly aware of the existance of technology, but rather that it is not seeing much practical use and it is not being used even close to the extent I was talking about.

There are no Laws using tech to spy on Americans anymore. Satellites can read your license plate in your driveway and drones from 14k ft can detect heat sigs inside your home. They track movement of people with tech and can using satellites. They want to be abl;e to tell if a person is carrying a concealed weapon from drones at altitude or space satellites. I think your theoretical image is behind the times.

There is an active resistence to this tech. As like you said its an invasion of privacy but it is real today.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9UTgmyDFWo&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

Sponsored by DARPA go figure.

Umm... I will not debate the existance of the techonolgy anymore because it is not the intent of the thread, but rather how the technology would be applied and how it would work, along with the morality of using it. Thanks for the info though! :tu:

I don't think a government that deprives citizens of privacy is serving their best interests.(so that's a no on the morality question)

This sounds to me like a prison scenario.

I imagine the high technology needed could be run with everyone connected via GPS to a computer program.

I would wonder, 'who watches the watchers'?

Perhaps medical nanobots could also function as motion capture via the GPS, making cameras unnecessary.

Although I don't disagree with you, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say: How is this depriving citizens of privacy? If no one has privacy, then there can be no privacy to compare it to. You would not feel a lack of privacy because there is no privacy in this scenario. Is prison really that bad of a place if you're with your loved ones? Although, in prison you get free food in loging, in this society you would not.

I agree with you that some sort of nanotechnology would have to serve to monitor, visual is not enough to pick up clues as to what a possible criminal is up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda reminds me of "Minority Report"

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may exist, but it is not put in use to the extent I was talking about.

Wha....? if your talking about my knowledge of technology, I am perfectly aware of the existance of technology, but rather that it is not seeing much practical use and it is not being used even close to the extent I was talking about.

Umm... I will not debate the existance of the techonolgy anymore because it is not the intent of the thread, but rather how the technology would be applied and how it would work, along with the morality of using it. Thanks for the info though! :tu:

Although I don't disagree with you, I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say: How is this depriving citizens of privacy? If no one has privacy, then there can be no privacy to compare it to. You would not feel a lack of privacy because there is no privacy in this scenario. Is prison really that bad of a place if you're with your loved ones? Although, in prison you get free food in loging, in this society you would not.

I agree with you that some sort of nanotechnology would have to serve to monitor, visual is not enough to pick up clues as to what a possible criminal is up to.

Q: "Is prison really that bad of a place if you're with your loved ones?"

A: Ever take a long road trip for a family vacation? lol

This is a kind of conditioning, by removing the peoples freedom and making it so they don't miss it to the point they are no longer aware of a life in which privacy existed,

Is this what you are implying?

The concept of privacy would still exist, at least among a citizens personal space in relation to one another.

The knowledge of being watched would bring resentment, if not by everyone then by a select few freedom fighters who would then become enemies of the state if they speak their mind.

Such a government would be sowing the seeds of its own downfall.

First privacy, then free speech, what next?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with that for public venues. But that wouldn't help crimes like child abuse. There are nanny cams but no parent cams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: "Is prison really that bad of a place if you're with your loved ones?"

A: Ever take a long road trip for a family vacation? lol

This is a kind of conditioning, by removing the peoples freedom and making it so they don't miss it to the point they are no longer aware of a life in which privacy existed,

Is this what you are implying?

The concept of privacy would still exist, at least among a citizens personal space in relation to one another.

The knowledge of being watched would bring resentment, if not by everyone then by a select few freedom fighters who would then become enemies of the state if they speak their mind.

Such a government would be sowing the seeds of its own downfall.

First privacy, then free speech, what next?

I never thought of the road trip analogy, nice! :clap:

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.

How would their freedom of speech be prohibited? they would still be able to speak their mind.

I don't have a problem with that for public venues. But that wouldn't help crimes like child abuse. There are nanny cams but no parent cams.

The point of it is that there are "parent cams" and "nanny cams" and "everybody cams".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Kinda reminds me of "Minority Report"

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

(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.

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

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.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.