Thread: Hidden Government Scanners Will Know Everything About You From 164 Ft Away

Originally Posted by Xei

Well don't, nobody wants to see any more propaganda articles with no content for an extended discussion in Extended Discussion.

I'll try not to let the fact that you're basically the only person complaining about such posts weigh too heavily on my soul. I figure those who do post in ED to be somewhat capable of actually commenting on the content of the article. Whether you feel it's propaganda or not, coming in to post something that amounts to 'this is propaganda' and walking out is completely hollow and pointless. I would think that Extended Discussion implies promoting discussion, and I think your trying to imply that there is 'nothing in the article to discuss is pretty desperate, here. Even Sageous was able to provide some rationale to why he disagreed with what the article was saying. Seems like you're the only person here who struggles with being able to talk about something meaningful on this topic.

Originally Posted by Xei

I was just taking your word for it but I looked at the OP again and I'm not sure exactly how "1984 here we come" is supposed to be spin-free.

Not spinning the Headline of the Article -> Not making a comment within the OP.

^This is where the non-sequitur happened. (You're right. That was fun!)

Article about electronic sniffer dog -> thought police.

This is where the non-sequitur happened.

I'm gonna humor you and pretend you are dumb enough to not see the logical (though light-heartedly exaggerated) progression I was making - from an article about a machine that can instantly know all of the trace elements of 'everything' around or inside of you from a distance, to the paradigm of 'yielding personal privacy for the sake of 'security'', which is the backbone of the Thought Police - and just say: You're so right! I don't know how I could have been so ignorant. Thank you, Xei, for showing me my erroneous ways. Thank you!

I didn't bother reading the article. The immense distrust and anti-government craze in America is getting pretty ridiculous. Not that there aren't issues to discuss or things worth debating, but this whole 1984 type stuff is beyond me.

Sensationalist, biased media is so much more of a danger to society than advances in scanner technology.

Originally Posted by Warheit

I didn't bother reading the article. The immense distrust and anti-government craze in America is getting pretty ridiculous. Not that there aren't issues to discuss or things worth debating, but this whole 1984 type stuff is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Sensationalist, biased media is so much more of a danger to society than advances in scanner technology.

Dr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

So what you might say. Well, he has written an 800 page book describing in detail a logisitical plan to exterminate 4/5's of the population of the planet via poisoning by toxic chemicals. He is the kind of powerful c**t that we are facing. When our love affair with petrochemicals is over and there is utter global mayhem the powerful elite will no doubt begin to implement their plans to get rid of most of us and the lucky ones that are left will be completely controlled slaves to ensure a steady transition into the new world. I for one can see this happening and I wouldn't want a fecking barcode stamped on my forehead and have a RFID chip implanted under my skin to keep constant tabs on me.

Originally Posted by Warheit

Not that there aren't issues to discuss or things worth debating, but this whole 1984 type stuff is beyond me.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Sensationalist, biased media is so much more of a danger to society than advances in scanner technology.

How about the context of that scanner technology, which I believe is the main point behind the sensationalism? Are you meaning to imply that there is no reason for anyone to be wary of an ideally-omniscient eye of government, using every resource possible to monitor us and our personal lives so closely that it could conceivably be used to do things like see 'every chemical' in/on your person as you walk down the street? In your mind, should there be no cautious aversion to a system whose stated goals consist of 'spying on you through your dishwasher, if possible' - a fallible system, whose infrastructure could (and often is) utilized under periods of corruption and/or well-documented hidden agendas? How about your implied bias toward those who are aware enough of past governmental conspiracies and 'evils' to take the stated goals of said government with a grain of salt, especially when those stated goals attempt to usher in more and more powerful ways for them to break down walls of certain expectations of privacy, campaigning for the inflated sense of a need for omnipresent security? Is that not unfair/naive/dangerous as well? Are those people automatically wrong for writing opinionated pieces, when there are countless examples in history of such fears having strong basis in reality?

What about the idea that some in congress are trying to lift the national propaganda ban, so that they can willfully, openly and legally pump out misinformation and bias to the public, as a recruiting tool and for garnering opinion toward foreign policy? If that 'sensationalist, biased media' is coming directly from the government (as if it isn't, at all, today), do you still find it 'dangerous'?

Are you trying to say that, whenever someone makes such a claim as this article is making about the scanner (that it is potentially invasive, and perpetuates a system of oversight which has been in the works for a long time and has openly exploited fear and the threat of widespread terror in order to enact laws and measures that, while an overseers wet dream, have not been 'ethically' impossible until now), they are automatically sensationalist? And is that as much an indirect implication that those people are automatically wrong, as it sounds? if so, then I would have to respectfully disagree. If that's not what you're trying to say, then please elaborate more on what you feel about the state of national security today, and how far you, personally, would be willing to allow the government to peer into your private life, at any given time.

To start with let me just say that this article is talking about scanners which are used to look for explosives or drugs on your person. It's a leap to go from that to a scanner which knows what you're thinking etc. This the exact kind of sensationalist exaggeration which I think is damaging for society. Anyway that's not really the point of this discussion so I'll just assume we're talking about absolute zero privacy.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

How about the context of that scanner technology, which I believe is the main point behind the sensationalism? Are you meaning to imply that there is no reason for anyone to be wary of an ideally-omniscient eye of government, using every resource possible to monitor us and our personal lives so closely that it could conceivably be used to do things like see 'every chemical' in/on your person as you walk down the street? In your mind, should there be no cautious aversion to a system whose stated goals consist of 'spying on you through your dishwasher, if possible' - a fallible system, whose infrastructure could (and often is) utilized under periods of corruption and/or well-documented hidden agendas?

I completely understand that a government with the ability to totally obliterate your privacy also has an enormous potential for corruption; so yes, I agree that advances towards the direction of zero privacy should be treated with caution. However I think that an ideal society would be a totally transparent one; and one where the government is subject to the exact same transparencies. Therefore the caution should be taken in ensuring that as our privacy is steadily breached, members of the government have even more privacies taken away to ensure that corruption is unlikely.

How about your implied bias toward those who are aware enough of past governmental conspiracies and 'evils' to take the stated goals of said government with a grain of salt, especially when those stated goals attempt to usher in more and more powerful ways for them to break down walls of certain expectations of privacy, campaigning for the inflated sense of a need for omnipresent security? Is that not unfair/naive/dangerous as well? Are those people automatically wrong for writing opinionated pieces, when there are countless examples in history of such fears having strong basis in reality?

Again I agree that governments that aren't totally transparent should be treated with well-measured caution. However paranoid media attention making out the government as an enemy that wants to pry into our life just to find something to lock us up about, I believe is damaging. Unfortunately I don't really have any evidence to back up my opinion on this. I just believe that there is a difference between vigilance against corruption, and paranoid anti-government media coverage. Maybe it's because I'm British and our government is a lot less scary than yours is.

What about the idea that some in congress are trying to lift the national propaganda ban, so that they can willfully, openly and legally pump out misinformation and bias to the public, as a recruiting tool and for garnering opinion toward foreign policy? If that 'sensationalist, biased media' is coming directly from the government (as if it isn't, at all, today), do you still find it 'dangerous'?

I hadn't heard about that, and propaganda is obviously a bad thing. However I'm not sure what you're trying to say, because I just have a problem with any form of biased media, regardless of whether it comes from private news corporations or from the government. What I believe would be best is if the only news outlet were something like Reuters, so the only news everyone received was totally un-opinionated.

Are you trying to say that, whenever someone makes such a claim as this article is making about the scanner (that it is potentially invasive, and perpetuates a system of oversight which has been in the works for a long time and has openly exploited fear and the threat of widespread terror in order to enact laws and measures that, while an overseers wet dream, have not been 'ethically' impossible until now), they are automatically sensationalist? And is that as much an indirect implication that those people are automatically wrong, as it sounds? if so, then I would have to respectfully disagree.

I would say that it's unfairly biased, but I wouldn't say that necessarily makes them wrong.

If that's not what you're trying to say, then please elaborate more on what you feel about the state of national security today, and how far you, personally, would be willing to allow the government to peer into your private life, at any given time.

As I've mentioned in another thread a while ago, which many people absolutely bloody hated me for, I personally believe that absolute transparency and zero privacy would be present in an ideal society. Even people in positions of authority would be subject to total transparency. As I genuinely believe (and unfortunately this is all it comes down to, I have no evidence) a society with no privacy would be a more open, human, progressive and safe society, I would be happy to lay down all my privacies if I knew it was for a good cause.

Hope I made my position a bit clearer, and I happily admit that I may well have made some serious errors of logic or thinking here

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Dr. John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

So what you might say. Well, he has written an 800 page book describing in detail a logisitical plan to exterminate 4/5's of the population of the planet via poisoning by toxic chemicals. He is the kind of powerful c**t that we are facing. When our love affair with petrochemicals is over and there is utter global mayhem the powerful elite will no doubt begin to implement their plans to get rid of most of us and the lucky ones that are left will be completely controlled slaves to ensure a steady transition into the new world. I for one can see this happening and I wouldn't want a fecking barcode stamped on my forehead and have a RFID chip implanted under my skin to keep constant tabs on me.

Sounds like you watched Zeitgeist one too many times. Are you scared of your own shadow?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Had a problem with those TSA Scanners? Just the tip of the iceberg.

Hidden Government Scanners Will Instantly Know Everything About You From 164 Feet Away}

1984, here we come!

P.S. Good that BS like this is always in the US.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

To start with let me just say that this article is talking about scanners which are used to look for explosives or drugs on your person. It's a leap to go from that to a scanner which knows what you're thinking etc.

The funny thing is that the only people here who took the headline that way are the people who don't think the government is going to use these things in any nefarious way.

Which is sort of the opposite of what I would imagine they would think.

Anyway, point is, if you let them implement BS like this, it's less of a step to let them implement, in the future, some device which can tell what you're thinking.
Besides, there's no evidence that implementing privacy reducing "security" measures for the whole population reduces crime.

And that's not what it's for either. That is their propaganda.
Which is why the U.S has not lost the war on terror as someone said on the first page of this thread.
The goal was not to terrorise the U.S and leave them in a state of constant fear, terrorists is just a name the West gave them.
Their goal was to get the U.S to leave their fucking country.

All of this has just been used as an excuse to ramp up the spying capabilities on ordinary citizens.
Even in countries where absolutely nothing has happened in regards to "terrorist" attacks. (Australian Government is now trying to implement several new laws to spy on every single citizens internet activities).

And to the people who want to "wait and see" what these devices will be used for....
What will you possibly do if they do start putting these everywhere? How could you stop it?
Can't blow anything up, they'll find it. Can't kill them, they'll see your guns.

No doubt you think this is blowing the whole thing out of proportion.
They already spy on you every day. You just choose to ignore it.
And eventually they will make something that you do, illegal.

Originally Posted by tommo

And eventually they will make something that you do, illegal.

I disagree with this; the government is not out to get you. I'm probably just being naive but I don't see that sort of thing happening outside of dystopian science fiction.

The only reason U.S.A is such a shithole (The country not the people) is because of economic inequality, almost every single problem is caused by this.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I disagree with this; the government is not out to get you. I'm probably just being naive but I don't see that sort of thing happening outside of dystopian science fiction.

Yeah you are just being naive.

They are not out to get me, personally (as far as I know) but they do want absolute control over the population.
Why do you deny this?

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah you are just being naive.

They are not out to get me, personally (as far as I know) but they do want absolute control over the population.
Why do you deny this?

I don't know... I don't feel clever enough for this discussion

First off, it is all too easy to just throw around "the government" as a generalized term in this context, but the reality is when used in that way it really doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as "the government" as a singular entity that encompasses all of the functions carried out by our various governmental departments and agencies and their respective leaderships. When you look at particular decisions you can't just say "the government did it", decision making is delegated throughout a large bureaucracy. So, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "the government wants this" or "the government is doing this". What you're seeing as "the government" is a composite of the decision making of a whole lot of people, each with their own set of motivations. To just say that it's "the government" being evil is completely ignorant of the many factors that form that composite.

The real problem that we're currently facing with a majority of our major decision-makers is not some sort of vast conspiracy to do evil; on the contrary it is the total inability to look at the big picture, and to consider how present trends in decision making affect where we are headed for the future. It consists not of an evil vision of the future but of no vision at all. It is out of a neglect of the big picture that such negative trends in policy arise. Most of these decisions are made chiefly with short-term and self-preservative ends in mind. This is, after all, a chief problem among humans - the inability to place long term benefit above short-term gains.

Originally Posted by Supernova

First off, it is all too easy to just throw around "the government" as a generalized term in this context, but the reality is when used in that way it really doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as "the government" as a singular entity that encompasses all of the functions carried out by our various governmental departments and agencies and their....

You're absolutely correct. I felt wrong just saying "the government" as well.
It really is just company shareholders, the top people in varying government departments, other very rich people etc. looking out for their own interests.

Thing is, I don't know enough about how American politics works (with their departments etc.) nor their justice system. So that's why I just said government, to encompass all of the governmental departments.

The companies are obviously just out for profit. However, in a way that still shows evil intent. If you know your product is going to be used for evil purposes, and you're not evil, you don't develop it.

But still, there is no doubt that the most self-serving, egotistical people rise to the top of these departments and will stop at nothing to get more and more power and money.

Originally Posted by Patrick

I don't know... I don't feel clever enough for this discussion

Don't put yourself down man. Unless you don't pay any attention at all to anything that's going on, you should be able to see what's happening.

The only problem with technology is how it's used. A scanner that can easily detect chemicals is not a good or a bad thing. A device that is able to stop people boarding planes with expolsives or amunition, which is a real occurrence, and without invasive or stupidly prohibitive measures (being able to bring liquids onto planes again will be nice), is on the whole a promising invention.

A government enforcing draconian punishments for possessing chemicals which shouldn't be illegal is a bad thing. A government invading privacy and restricting freedom of speech is a bad thing. But these issues are not coupled to this technology. If anybody wants to talk about these issues, I recommend you create a thread and supply evidence.

And an article stating that this device knows everything about you remains stupid propaganda.

Actually it is part of this discussion if a government agency is buying them. Especially a government agency with a proven track record of not giving a fuck about safety and just making dollars.

I unquestioningly support every action the United States government has taken in any direction for any reason.

'MURKA!

Originally Posted by tommo

Actually it is part of this discussion if a government agency is buying them. Especially a government agency with a proven track record of not giving a fuck about safety and just making dollars.

He knows that. He's just playing dumb. *cough*

I don't see what the big deal is.

I've actually been looking forward to this sort of technology augmenting current security measures.

Surely no one disagrees on the usefulness of surveillance cameras. These sensors would be able to improve upon those types of systems ten-fold, potentially preventing crime, shortening police response time, among other things. Imagine the number of tragedies that could be avoided or lessened if these were standard equipment.

If they're effective at stopping crime before it happens, people might be less inclined to attempt the crime to begin with.

As for the privacy issue...what privacy issue? Unless you're actually carrying around the stuff these are sniffing for, and plan to use it maliciously, there's nothing to be concerned about. It's not like people legitimately carrying guns or drugs are going to be arrested or detained. Worst case scenario, the police show up, ask a few questions, and you go on your way.


Aside: The TSA scanners are fun, IMO, most people are just prudes. Whenever I travel with family, me and my bro joke about how we've been working out and we can't wait to show it off in the scanners. This usually elicits a smile from the staff and they wave us through to the normal procedure.

If they ever do ask me to go into the scanner one of these days, I'll probably ask if they want me to pose a certain way, or flex for them.

Yeah. God forbid you be carrying around a substance that they have demonized, and made illegal, even though it is in no way 'evil' or 'immoral'. "Land of the Free", unless they don't like what you're doing, even if their prejudice against you is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Yeah. God forbid you be carrying around a substance that they have demonized, and made illegal, even though it is in no way 'evil' or 'immoral'. "Land of the Free", unless they don't like what you're doing, even if their prejudice against you is hypocritical.

I never understood why people (assuming non-homeless) carry drugs on them at all. Especially in a public place.

Are they planning to use while they're out and about? What's the logic there? Laws or no, seems like a good way to get yourself in trouble.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

I never understood why people (assuming non-homeless) carry drugs on them at all. Especially in a public place.

Are they planning to use while they're out and about? What's the logic there? Laws or no, seems like a good way to get yourself in trouble.

But it's not about 'carrying drugs on them', is it? It's about having 'trace elements' of it on your person. Whether you have larger quantities of it on your or not, you are now a person of interest just because you have traces of it on or in you - right down on that cocaine residue on your newly-acquired dollar bill.

And the logic of someone who smokes weed likely amounts to 'hey, I'm gonna go for a 4-mile hike. Maybe, possibly, sometime during that walk, I might want to smoke a joint. Maybe I should bring one with me.'

[Edit: Or, no, here's one. How about: 'I just drove 20 miles to get to this IMAX theater to watch this crazy, eye-candy movie. Would be nice if I had brought a joint with me, so I can take a short walk and smoke before the movie, as opposed to smoking at home and driving to the theater while stoned, which would just be irresponsible.']

That you could only equate that thought process with someone who is homeless shows your aversion to apparently any mind-altering substance (which is ok, I guess?) much more than it shows some relevance to the topic.

You know what? Jaywalking is a good way to get in trouble (assuming an officer decides to Hassle You about it). Does the fact that I jaywalk every now and then make me an irresponsible person, or someone who should be 'watched'?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

But it's not about 'carrying drugs on them', is it? It's about having 'trace elements' of it on your person. Whether you have larger quantities of it on your or not, you are now a person of interest just because you have traces of it on or in you - right down on that cocaine residue on your newly-acquired dollar bill.

This assumes you're still in the area when/if the police get around to checking out an automated report that involves trace amounts of an illegal substance. I'm assuming, that if the tech ever gets to the point where it's this widely used, they'll be able to differentiate between trace amounts and unusually large amounts. Either way, this tech won't be able to remotely ID a person. They'd have to pair it with satellite face recognition for that to happen, which is unreasonable at such a large scale.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

And the logic of someone who smokes weed likely amounts to 'hey, I'm gonna go for a 4-mile hike. Maybe, possibly, sometime during that walk, I might want to smoke a joint. Maybe I should bring one with me.'

I could see this being problematic in an urban setting, but this isn't much of an issue in a suburban or rural environment, even with this technology in place.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

That you could only equate that thought process with someone who is homeless shows your aversion to apparently any mind-altering substance (which, I guess I could respect) much more than it shows some relevance to the topic.

Hmm? I was just trying to avoid a possible counter argument that would focus around how some people (homeless) don't have a "private" place to store things besides on their person, which itself isn't a valid assertion.

To be fair, I did have an aversion to mind-altering substances for the longest time. Then I learned more about them, found out exactly what they do to the body, talked with people who've tried various things at one point or another, read personal accounts, etc.

Nowadays, the effects of soda concern me more than weed does. That said, I'm still not keen on using mind-altering substances. Hell, when I do drink, I typically don't drink enough to get even mildly drunk; I just love the taste of rum, good wine (preferably with a meat dish), and a select few beers.

Even where LDing is concerned, the only "substance" I take to help things is apple juice.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

You know what? Jaywalking is a good way to get in trouble (assuming an officer decides to Hassle You about it). Does the fact that I jaywalk every now and then make me an irresponsible person?

Totally. You should cut that shit out before you step on gum or something.