Why don't we Lojack everyone?

[NecronLord]

As for cars... I'm a believer in the Robocop school of car crime prevention

And that is?

(Sorry, it's months ago since I last saw "Robocop")

It's in one of the films. They show this advert for the X automobile security system, of a thug breaking into a car, when he tries to hotwire it big clamps clamp him into the seat and he gets electrocuted.

Replace with a mechanism to autodial the police and lock the car's brakes on....

[Ted C]

Now, I'm open to hearing some other explanations, but it seems to me that the only reason one would have to fear such a measure is if they were engaging in illegal activities, or planned on engaging in illegal activities sometime in the future.

I don't do anything illegal, but I have engaged in some activities that the general population may frown upon. For example, I have been to several pagan religious festivals in my time. I've gone to outright atheist since then, but I still hang out with my pagan friends.

You can bet, though, that if I ever ran for public office, a political rival would want to use my past association with pagans against me, since pagans in this country are a small minority who are the constant target of negative Christian propaganda.

[Lagmonster]

Are there REALLY more downsides than upsides to this?

It might cause some medical problems if you have some machinery implanted in you - for example, if you are in the vicinity of something which interferes with the lojack chip. Also, the fact that people are uncomfortable with being "spyed on" may contribute to general civil unrest in periods of uprisings. And history shows that we have pretty bad experience with authorities having so much power over the populace.

The 'panic button' problem is hardly that - I wouldn't take odds on a population like Canada or the US rebelling wholesale against a system designed to protect them. Oh, sure, you'd get shitloads of people like yourself who would refuse to be tagged. But I think that - depending on what the chip did - a wide variety of people would do it. Parents wanting to keep their kids secure, for example. After a generation or so grew up with it, it would slide into the norm. History also shows that, given the right propeganda, need, or circumstance, people can get used to ANYTHING.

Besides which, the question still stands: Is it possible to implement such a system with safeguards AGAINST abuse? Most other forms of tech we have are regulated, monitored, and policed in their use and in many cases, acres of laws and counter-technologies exist to prevent their misuse (such as speed limits on roads, for example, to lower the probability of accidents).

You can think of the PROBLEMS with the tech, but there HAS to be solutions beyond "throw it all in the garbage".

[Ted C]

You'll notice, I think, that most of the people who object to this concept only object to being subjected to it involuntarily. If somebody were to offer me such a tracking device, I would consider its costs, benefits, drawbacks, and the privacy controls on its data before deciding whether I wanted one. If someone tells me I must take one, I'm going to object.

[Durandal]

Forcing an implant into people against their will is a violation of civil rights. If I don't want the thing in my body, I don't have to have it in my body, period. This is just an extension of Roe vs. Wade.

So let's change the scenario a little bit in order to get to the real heart of this issue. Let's say a technology has been developed that can track your movements based on the brain waves emanating from your head. No implant is required. Do we implement this technology?

[Lagmonster]

You'll notice, I think, that most of the people who object to this concept only object to being subjected to it involuntarily. If somebody were to offer me such a tracking device, I would consider its costs, benefits, drawbacks, and the privacy controls on its data before deciding whether I wanted one. If someone tells me I must take one, I'm going to object.

Why? Just for the sake of arguing? Do you send angry letters to government when the census comes around?

Time was that all school kids HAD to get shots against various diseases. They lined you up and punctured you. Resistance was futile. If you objected, tough shit.

Now, you're going to say, "But such a thing is better for everyone, everywhere!", at which point I tell you, "Yes. So, if something has been determined to be universally mandatory, do you think it is designed to a) benefit us as a society or b) fuck us over for no good reason?". Point is, if it was MADE mandatory in the first place, there was probably a licensed-voter-acceptable REASON for it to get there.

[NecronLord]

What brain waves? It's a false and pointless dilema, there are no such brain waves.

[Zoink]

How I see it:

I have sovereignty over my own body. The premise for this is that ultimately, I am the only one who has my own best interest/desires in mind. IMHO, I am more infallible when it comes to protecting my own interest compared to society as a whole, which has been known to forget about the needs of any one particular individual.

I participate in society ultimately for my own benefit. Within this society I must be given the freedom to do as I will with myself (for reasons given above), until such point as my actions harm others. Not being implanted doesn't harm people, being in this state doesn't do harm. If every person chose to not be implanted, society doesn't crumble. This state isn't incompatible with everyone's well being, and therefore must be given as a valid choice.

The potential benefits to society (ability to track criminals, being lost in the woods) are of course a good thing. So I might voluntarily chose to have one of these devices. But frankly, I must be shown that this system is safe and can't ever be abused before I would chose to accept this "benefit". I don't think the government has the ability to show me that it meets these criteria at this time.

[Ted C]

As someone else noted, totalitarian regimes have consistently wanted to monitor the movements of everyone in their territory. Their reason is to track the activities of opposition groups. I see no reason to hand any government an easy way to realize that goal.

The average, content citizen would have no reason to object to the proposed system. It goes without saying that criminals wouldn't want to be tagged, but law-abiding citizens who are opposed to the existing government won't want it either.

[Durandal]

What brain waves? It's a false and pointless dilema, there are no such brain waves.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's hypothetical. Instead of an implant which brings an invasion of your body into the equation, it's a scenario which removes that complication and gets to the heart of the issue: should the government know where you are at all times?

And no, it's not a false dilemma. Please try to understand what a logical fallacy is before throwing it around like a buzzword.

[Zoink]

So let's change the scenario a little bit in order to get to the real heart of this issue. Let's say a technology has been developed that can track your movements based on the brain waves emanating from your head. No implant is required. Do we implement this technology?

In this case I wouldn't have a problem with it. Its just a more sophisticated and accurate form of surveillance, like video cameras or just trailing someone.

Of course, society might chose not to accept this benefit unless they are certain it can't be abused.

[Peregrin Toker]

Besides which, the question still stands: Is it possible to implement such a system with safeguards AGAINST abuse?

The very purpose of lojack implant chips allow for a vast increase in government control. It does not matter that we do what we can, the government still knows where you are, all the time.

[Ted C]

These are all from Mike's essay on the Communist Manifesto; they seem relevant to this particular argument.

And absolute power does corrupt absolutely, even in the hands of the benevolent Communist Party.

Marx wished to persecute rebels, but how does one specifically target rebels? In free societies, a rebel is only arrested if he commits an act which violates one of the general laws, such as shooting a police officer or bombing a government building. The fact that he is a rebel is not, in itself, considered illegal. There are no special laws designed to target rebels, and in fact, numerous forms of public protest, demonstration and civil disobedience are actually protected by law. So we return to the question of: "how do we specifically target rebels"? Well, one can hardly single them out by waiting for them to break a general law- this is what we do for all citizens. The only way to single out rebels is to target their political beliefs. This is exactly what real communist states have always done, and although neo-Marxists claim that this isn't what Marx intended, they can't explain how he planned to persecute "rebels" without resorting to such measures.

If the authorities know the location where an opposed political faction meets, they can identify members of that faction by simply identifying the people who show up for the meeting. With the mandatory locator chip, it becomes impossible to organize a meeting for any purpose without the authorities being able to identify everyone in attendance.

First rule of all dictatorships: seize control of the radio stations, the telephone system, and the newspapers. Neo-marxists claim that Marxism does not necessarily lead to dictatorship, but it's hard to agree with that claim when one of Karl Marx's ten commandments is the state seizure of all "means of communication"! Such far-reaching government power over communications can be abused to muzzle miscreants or suppress public knowledge of state misdeeds at any time, so it effectively removes freedom of expression. Without freedom of expression, there can be no freedom at all. Of course, it goes without saying that the seizure of transport has a similar chilling effect on freedom of movement.

And the fact that the authorities know where you are at any given moment won't affect freedom of expression or freedom of movement?

If people can't always be trusted to resist the temptations of power over their own children, how can any sane person claim that politicians should be implicitly trusted to resist the temptations of power over a population of total strangers?

And one from his Federation Communism page...

Big Brother is watching you: All movements are tracked in the Federation. Since no one has personal starships, everyone must book passage on state-owned transports in order to get where they want to go. You've heard it countless times: "I've booked passage to Mars," or "I'm going to try to book passage to the frontier". You never hear "I just bought a ship and I'm going to head off to the frontier" or "I'm renting a ship next month so I can go planet-jumping". The result of this monopoly is that Starfleet officers can easily track every movement of any citizen within the Federation. Any security officer can easily rattle off a list of all the places any citizen has gone, how long they were there, etc. Contrast this to real life, where the bus driver wants exact change but he couldn't care less about your ID. Unless you leave the country, nobody asks to see a passport or identification.

Mike, you describe the ability of the Federation government to monitor the movement of citizens as if it's a bad thing, yet you apparently have no objection to a modern government being able to monitor the movements of all of its citizens at all times.

[NecronLord]

What brain waves? It's a false and pointless dilema, there are no such brain waves.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's hypothetical. Instead of an implant which brings an invasion of your body into the equation, it's a scenario which removes that complication and gets to the heart of the issue: should the government know where you are at all times?

In other words you could have chosen to simply say that instead? Good. So the these brain waves are for what? Embellishment. You could have simply said 'Setting aside the issue of invasion of your body ...' and avoided some annoying pseudoscience.

And no, it's not a false dilemma. Please try to understand what a logical fallacy is before throwing it around like a buzzword.

Your question: "Should we or shouldn't we?" the answer "We can not." an answer other than your proposed black and white answer...

False Dilemma

Or I could have called it an irrelevancy, which is more accurate. Would that suit you better?

EDIT: Incidentally I didn't go looking for the name of a logical fallacy to fling. That is simply what it is. It can't be done, so it's a waste of time discussing that scenario.

[Lagmonster]

Besides which, the question still stands: Is it possible to implement such a system with safeguards AGAINST abuse?

The very purpose of lojack implant chips allow for a vast increase in government control. It does not matter that we do what we can, the government still knows where you are, all the time.

So...your answer is 'I don't know', then? Have you defined who gets to know this info, besides, 'The Government'? Have we decided if individual citizens have the right to know, on request, EXACTLY who has access to your info? Have we implemented laws which prohibit non-lisenced agencies from accessing the info? Have we established and made public and voted on the reasons for which an individual would have access to your location? Do we understand the benefits at all? And after all that, is there any reason left to be afraid of it (and if so, how can we fix that)?

Suppose you're tasked with implementing this system in a foreign country (so you, personally won't have to have a chip). The majority of people want it, for whatever reasons. Your job is to make sure that nobody can fuck with it, that it can't be abused or disadvantage individuals or the population. Can you do it, or not? I think you'll find that it's impossible to just cast things like this aside out of hand - without making an effort to establish what the variables are between technology, personal rights vs. benefits to society, and legislation.

And I understand that others will say, "I just wanna be invisible so mean people can't get me", but paranoia is an emotional problem and not a reasonable objection.

[RedImperator]

Alright, let's use that hypothetical situation. I'll pretend I've just been contracted to design a system for use in a foreign country which is a liberal democracy.

First, for adults, the system is voluntary. Kids can have tracking chips implanted when they're born, but can have them deactivated or removed when they turn 18. Convicted felons can have the chip inserted involuntarily and left in for life. Certain professions may require members have a chip insterted, but these would have to be specified by law and only for very specific reasons (for police officers, for example, in case they're shot on the job).

Medical tracking data is limited to: heart rate, blood pressure, and respitory rate. The chip may be programmed with certain fixed information such as the user's blood type. Under no circumstances can a chip detect or broadcast the specific chemical composition of an individual's blood, including chips inserted into minors.

All tracking data is destroyed after a fixed period of time unless the person in question requests otherwise or is a convicted felon. Movement data is deleted after, say, six months. Medical data is held on to for five years, say, in case a doctor wants to check someone's medical history and see for how long a condition has been developing.

The chips will send an alarm signal in a medical emergency that will allow police departments, fire departments, and hospitals to track a chip. At all other times, both the tracking and the medical data will be stored and sealed. Nobody may access that data without a warrant, written permission from the person, or a written doctor's order in cases where the patient is incapaciated or possibly represents a public health risk (such as the patient is sick with smallpox and authorities want to figure out where he's been in the two weeks). In cases where a crime has been committed, warrants may be issed to identifiy the signals of everyone within a certain radius of the crime scene, but all persons involved must be notified. When the warrant expires or the case is closed, all copies of the data other than the original must be destroyed, unless one or more of the people involved was convicted of a felony, in which case their data becomes, as evidence in a criminal case, a matter of public record. In all cases where only medical data is necessary, tracking data by law will remain secret. In cases where only tracking data is needed, medical data by law will remain secret.

Anyone who has had a chip voluntarily inserted may at any time request to see his own data. He may at any time request that any part of the data on record be destroyed, and this will be carried out in a timely fashion unless that person is a suspect in a criminal investigation or a potential public health risk (in both cases, a court order is necessary to protect the data). Parents may request to see tracking data on their children, but this data becomes the exclusive property of the child once he reaches the age of adulthood. Doctors must recieve written permission from their patents to access medical records. The data at all times remains the property of the bearer of the chip and may be sold to anyone the bearer choses; however, under no circimstances may the data be sold by the government. Using data acquired illegally for any purpose is a felony offense. Those who have had a chip inserted involuntarily may still request to see their own data but may not request it be destroyed. This data is the property of the government. It still may not be resold and is off-limits to the general public unless it is evidence in a criminal case in which the subject has been convicted.

Those who have had the chip inserted voluntarily may legally have it removed at any time. They may, if it is technically possible without compromising the integrity of the chip itself, deactivate it at any time for any reason. They may NOT "spoof" the system--jam their own signal while broadcasting a fake signal from another location, for example. It is a felony offense to impersonate anyone else's signal or jam his signal without his knowledge. It is a felony offense to attempt to jam signals in a public place.

The system will use the most secure possible encryption. Intercepting and decrypting a signal is a felony offense. Viewing the data for any reason without a warrant, legitimate medical emergency, or permission from the chip bearer is a felony offense. It is legal to detect the signal without decrypting it to detect, but not track, people on private property. A property owner may legally bar admittance to chipped individuals onto his property (excepting "public use" facilities in which other types of discrimination are already illegal), or may, if a notice is posted, jam all tracking signals being broadcast from persons on his property. It is the responsibility of the chip bearer to alert nearby medical authorities that they will lose signal from his chip. Chip bearers are in no way required to identify themselves in such a way that passers-by would know they carried a chip. It would be the responsibility of property owners, using detection devices, to find out if a chip was in use. It is a felony offense to use such a device in public to discern chipped from non-chipped individuals.

In all cases where a chip bearer's privacy is violated, the chip bearer will have the right to sue the individuals or entities who violated that privacy, including agents of the government or the government itself. Individual agents who knowingly violate the law will be personally liable in such suits. Doctors who illegally access a patient's medical records or retransmit them to unauthorized parties will be subject to criminal and civil liabilites and will forefit their liscense to practice medicine.

EDIT: It might, in fact, be easier to have the chips manufactured, implanted, and monitered by private companies, in much the same way Lojack or those First Alert medical pagers are manufactured and operated by private entities. None of the above laws would change, and governments will still control the chips inserted into felons. It's just easier to enforce those laws if the government is policing the activities of a private entity than it is to ensure the government doesn't break its own laws (the Federal government's environmental record is a good illustration of this).

[aerius]

As for cutting the government out of all access to the tracking data, I think of it this way. Knowing where I am or where I've been is not going to help the government do a better job for me in any way, at least I can't think of any ways it would help. Thus if it's not going to benefit me in any way, they have no need for the tracking data. For them to have this info and not do anything useful with it just makes it another wasteful pork barrel project at best. That's why I feel the government has no business at all having access to my tracking data.

The data is useful for the police since they can tell if I've been whacked by mugger and catch him, and they can also clear me of wrongful accusations. If my kid gets snatched they can find him, and also see who did it and put his ass away. The medical service can tell if I'm having a stroke and send an ambulance for me. If I fall and can't get up they can send help. It benefits me for the cops & medical services to have tracking info on me, so I have no real problems with them having it.

[Ted C]

Why? Just for the sake of arguing?

No, because the government has no need to be able to track my whereabouts and movements.

Do you send angry letters to government when the census comes around?

No, determining how to allocate funds is a legitimate reason to have certain information, but I don't answer questions to which I don't think they need the answer, either.

Time was that all school kids HAD to get shots against various diseases. They lined you up and punctured you. Resistance was futile. If you objected, tough shit.

Immunization serves the legitimate purpose of protecting other children from the disease. Nonetheless, I believe parents could refuse to allow immunization if they wanted to.

Now, you're going to say, "But such a thing is better for everyone, everywhere!", at which point I tell you, "Yes. So, if something has been determined to be universally mandatory, do you think it is designed to a) benefit us as a society or b) fuck us over for no good reason?". Point is, if it was MADE mandatory in the first place, there was probably a licensed-voter-acceptable REASON for it to get there.

The fact that the majority passed a law does not necessarily make it ethically right. There used to be blue laws all across the country, you may recall, but most of them have been repealed. I'm still subjected to some in my part of the country, and I resent them every Sunday. I've lived in states where they're gone, and I wish people down here would get over them.

Example: In Iowa, I could walk into any grocery store and by alcohol any day of the week. In Tennessee, I can only by beer in grocery stores, I have to go to a liquor store to get wine or anything distilled, and they are required by law to be closed on Sunday. In South Carolina, I couldn't even by a raincoat on Sunday. These laws were put in place by the Christian majority, in spite of the Constitutional prohibition against laws that support a particular religion. A reason acceptable to the majority is not necessarily a legitimate reason.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I certainly wouldn't want one. Do I want the government to know every political rally I happen to attend? Do I want them to know if I attend religious services that aren't in the main stream, or just whether I go to church on Sunday morning? Do I want them to be able to identify all of the friends that I visit? Do I want them to be able to tell how often I visit the liquor store? Do I want them to know if I visit a strip bar or nudist camp? If I were to ever run for public office, would somebody be looking up records of my movements?

A private company might be able to provide this capability as a service, with appropriate privacy guarantees included, but it's way too much information for the government to have automatically. I don't trust the government not to abuse whatever power you give it, hence I don't believe in giving it any more than necessary.

I agree. The information that can be derived just by knowing someone's location at all times over an extended duration is more information than I want to volunteer. There are also hacking considerations -- how do you know at any given time who has access to your location data? Appeal to Ignorance, I know, but information security is a valid concern, and your very personal information is the greatest concern of all.

Second, I object to it because it is, on a real-time basis, involuntary, unless you can activate and deactivate the transmitter yourself. I would not object to having an emergency transmitter (not surgically implanted) that I could activate and deactivate at my own discretion, which would be monitored by a private firm existing solely for that purpose and with strictly-observed privacy guidelines. One that would relay only relevant information to appropriate service personnel via high-speed communications links.

But I would never allow myself to be radio-tagged like some antelope on the Discovery Channel.

[Arrow]

But I would never allow myself to be radio-tagged like some antelope on the Discovery Channel.

Then don't carry a cell phone. Do have any idea how stupidifyling easy it is track those things, much less listen in on cell phone calls? And for the government, its damn cheap.

[Beowulf]

But I would never allow myself to be radio-tagged like some antelope on the Discovery Channel.

Then don't carry a cell phone. Do have any idea how stupidifyling easy it is track those things, much less listen in on cell phone calls? And for the government, its damn cheap.

CDMA is actually rather difficult to listen in on, due to it's spread spectrum technology, along with the built in encryption...

[Arrow]

The encryption would be a pain in the ass, but the signal is still there, so you could still be tracked (I doubt your user ID or whatever you want to call it is encrypted). But, a lot of cell phones are unprotected, so you can listen in on them with ease.

[Darth Wong]

Why? Just for the sake of arguing?

No, because the government has no need to be able to track my whereabouts and movements.

Incorrect. The potential usefulness of location tracking from the perspective of police and health department purposes has been very clearly outlined in this thread already.

Immunization serves the legitimate purpose of protecting other children from the disease. Nonetheless, I believe parents could refuse to allow immunization if they wanted to.

Not if they want their kids to be allowed to attend public school. It's the same thing with a national ID such as your social security number. Technically, you aren't forced to get one. But if you want a job, you have to get one.

The fact that the majority passed a law does not necessarily make it ethically right. There used to be blue laws all across the country, you may recall, but most of them have been repealed. I'm still subjected to some in my part of the country, and I resent them every Sunday. I've lived in states where they're gone, and I wish people down here would get over them.

No one is saying that. We're saying that you already accept numerous intrusions into your personal affairs which are much more onerous than the police and health department knowing your geographical location and whether you're still breathing at any given time.

[The Question]

The question is, who owns your body? You or the state?

Well, since individuals are antecedent to the state, it's not the rightful power of the state to go forcing things into people's bodies against their consent.

Not a hard question.

[Durandal]

In other words you could have chosen to simply say that instead? Good. So the these brain waves are for what? Embellishment. You could have simply said 'Setting aside the issue of invasion of your body ...' and avoided some annoying pseudoscience.

Oh fuck you, you nitpicking little cunt.

So let's change the scenario a little bit in order to get to the real heart of this issue. Let's say a technology has been developed that can track your movements based on the brain waves emanating from your head. No implant is required. Do we implement this technology?

Emphasis mine. I'm sorry I didn't spell it out in smaller words within the sphere of your reading comprehension for you and that you're incapable of taking a sentence in the context of the entire post, but frankly your lack of intellectual prowess is not my problem. Any other idiot could have seen what I was getting at; it apparently escaped your grasp.

Your question: "Should we or shouldn't we?" the answer "We can not." an answer other than your proposed black and white answer...

Fuck you, you fucking worthless piece of nitpicking shit. In a hypothetical scenario, the can's and cannot's aren't considered. That's why it's called "hypothetical." Did you jump all over Mike for suggesting implants, even though that is not feasible?

False Dilemma

Or I could have called it an irrelevancy, which is more accurate. Would that suit you better?

EDIT: Incidentally I didn't go looking for the name of a logical fallacy to fling. That is simply what it is. It can't be done, so it's a waste of time discussing that scenario.

No, your bullshit is an irrelevancy. You're showing everyone the textbook definition of a nitpick. You didn't address anything I just said, you just said, "You can't track brainwaves!" as if it mattered in the least to my question. I could have replaced the "brainwaves" part with any number of other things, and it wouldn't have made shit for a difference in my post. Therefore, attacking my post based on that is a nitpick. So go fuck yourself.