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

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.

Why? What's wrong about what I said?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

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

Please stop trolling, it is against DV rules.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

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.

I'm not sure I follow, and I never said that the tech would be able to remotely ID a person (in the same way that radar guns don't need to ID a speeder). You also seem to assume that such things are immediately limited to 100% ethical use, and I think that the reality being that they are Not always used ethically is - again - the basis of the discussion. Tools like this make certain other offenses easier, such as racial profiling, which is still a major problem in many regions, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it. It is like the seat-belt law, in some instances. Do you believe every officer pulls over every person they see not wearing their seat-belt? No, they are subject to their own discretion. Certain (not all) cops are more likely to pull over someone not wearing their seat-belt, who fits another sort of profile (whether racial or cultural), in which they may readily perceive that stopping that person might yield some other kind of result than just a seat-belt ticket. That is how profiling works. If the machine is portable enough to be mounted to cruisers, as the article suggests, I don't think there would be much delay in "checking out" the report, which would be so close to real-time. Maybe if you're in the middle of a large crowd, you could slip away without the cop being able to see who is actually being scanned with his own eyes?

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

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.

Soo....2 out of 3 ain't bad?

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

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.

Yea, I don't think we were on the same page, with that one. I wasn't thinking anywhere along those lines.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

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.

Called it!
Hehe.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

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

I know, right? Old habits die hard.

Originally Posted by Xei

Please stop trolling, it is against DV rules.

I'm sorry. Did I go too far? I was just trying to give credit where I believe it's due.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

I'm not sure I follow, and I never said that the tech would be able to remotely ID a person (in the same way that radar guns don't need to ID a speeder). You also seem to assume that such things are immediately limited to 100% ethical use, and I think that the reality being that they are Not always used ethically is - again - the basis of the discussion. Tools like this make certain other offenses easier, such as racial profiling, which is still a major problem in many regions, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it. It is like the seat-belt law, in some instances. Do you believe every officer pulls over every person they see not wearing their seat-belt? No, they are subject to their own discretion. Certain (not all) cops are more likely to pull over someone not wearing their seat-belt, who fits another sort of profile (whether racial or cultural), in which they may readily perceive that stopping that person might yield some other kind of result than just a seat-belt ticket. That is how profiling works. If the machine is portable enough to be mounted to cruisers, as the article suggests, I don't think there would be much delay in "checking out" the report, which would be so close to real-time. Maybe if you're in the middle of a large crowd, you could slip away without the cop being able to see who is actually being scanned with his own eyes?

Yes, those are legitimate concerns. Of course, I feel this tech would be more useful augmenting current CCTV systems. Which seems to be where things are currently headed, given the article.

Putting them on squad cars seems unnecessary and more open to corruption. A possibility, yes, but that alone shouldn't deter adoption of potentially life-saving technology.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Soo....2 out of 3 ain't bad?

Just a matter of population density and statistics.

Of course, all potential issues can be avoided if the person in question knows the environment well enough.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

Yes, those are legitimate concerns. Of course, I feel this tech would be more useful augmenting current CCTV systems. Which seems to be where things are currently headed, given the article.

Putting them on squad cars seems unnecessary and more open to corruption. A possibility, yes, but that alone shouldn't deter adoption of potentially life-saving technology.

I can agree with that. And again, to be a bit more clear, I'm not trying to paint the picture that these tools are 'inherently evil' (which seems to be a bit of a hang-up, in this thread. I just don't think its wise or realistic to welcome every new potentially-invasive technology without a bit of scrutiny for the people who wield it. And it seems that, lately, we have been going the way of "increased security at any cost", which I think is dangerous, and goes against what many of us as Americans stand for. It is why I think it's important to have these types of discussions.

Originally Posted by Mzzkc

Just a matter of population density and statistics.

Of course, all potential issues can be avoided if the person in question knows the environment well enough.

Yeah, it goes back to the 'person in question' (or the 'person of interest') having to be more savvy of how to get around security protocol, than to feel comfortable committing non-violent, non-malicious acts that - because of irrational legislation - could get him fined or thrown in jail. I think that more highlights the problem than the solution, really.

The solution is legalization of these substances and harsh penalties for misuse.

The alcohol model is a good place to start.

Of course that takes federal legislation. And we all know how that tends to play out.

Just for the doubters still....
NSA whistle blowers warn that the US government can use surveillance to 'see into your life' - Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer // Current TV

Yah what you've posted there is a completely distinct article.

There is a difference between rejecting an argument for X and rejecting X. Plebs typically don't grasp this; you have to have intellectual honesty and rigour to understand it.

Originally Posted by Warheit

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

I haven't watched Zeigeist, and I have no desire too either. I generally am not interested in conspiracy theory but instead in conspiracy fact. I'm not scared of my own shadow, Im scared of mankind's reckless pillaging and raping of our planet and the scum that relish in the power that they have to decide the fate of millions, and perhaps billions of people.

I dont think you understand the brevity of the book that Dr. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has written. He has decided that you have to die, by poisoning, along with your family, friends and everyone else you know. Your life is meaningless to him. The human race cannot survive unless you die, or to be more precise, you are murdered quickly en masse with most of the rest of the poeple living on our planet.

Your toothbrush is made from oil. Your credit card is made from oil. Your tv remote is made from oil. The plastic wrapping containing your chocolate bar is made from oil. The exotic out of season fruit and veg in your local supermarket is delivered to you only because of oil. If you drive a car it takes 7 gallons of oil to make just one car tyre. It takes 9 calories of hydrocarbon energy to make 1 calorie of food produced in indutrialised nations.

Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves of oil on the planet. How much they have left is a state secret. They are now investing more money in off-shore drilling than they are spending on land drilling. They have passed peak production and as they have the largest reserves then it is axiomatic that the planet has passed peak production. The stuff is running out and consumption is rising due to the economic esplosions in the Orient. Global population is rising. There ain't enough to go around for much longer. Our way of life, it seems, must remain intact to the most important man of science in US politics. And they only way that can happen is to exterminate you, me and every other seeming parasitic human being on the planet.

The wholesome, happy alternatives to his plans would generate great discussion, but please don't be so naive buddy

Originally Posted by Xei

Yah what you've posted there is a completely distinct article.

There is a difference between rejecting an argument for X and rejecting X. Plebs typically don't grasp this; you have to have intellectual honesty and rigour to understand it.

Oh really? The exact company buying these sensors is gathering massive amounts of information and compiling it to determine where you will be/what you'll be doing and who knows what else they can figure out, and you don't think they're going to use it for reasons beyond what they claim?

That is not intellectual rigor, that's idiocy.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

The wholesome, happy alternatives to his plans would generate great discussion, but please don't be so naive buddy

I'm not worried about that guy or his book. Has nothing to do with being naive, "buddy."

Originally Posted by tommo

Oh really? The exact company buying these sensors is gathering massive amounts of information and compiling it to determine where you will be/what you'll be doing and who knows what else they can figure out, and you don't think they're going to use it for reasons beyond what they claim?

That is not intellectual rigor, that's idiocy.

Except I said nothing like that at all. In fact you've just gone and done what I did talk about and conflated rejecting an argument for X with rejecting X... brilliant.

Originally Posted by Xei

There is a difference between rejecting an argument for X and rejecting X. Plebs typically don't grasp this; you have to have intellectual honesty and rigour to understand it.

If you don't mind, would you please elaborate on how this applies to this thread, specifically? I'm trying to understand you reason for wording it the way you did, without making any accusations.

It'll be just like Brazil! This is perfect too, since we're all LDers we can force ourselves to develop wings in our dreams and fight Samurai robots and crying babies!

Non-sequitur was amusing and then concerning.