Welcome to Gaia! ::

As anyone who has read a fairly decent collection of Science Fiction should be familer with the idea of tracking credit cards, palm scanners, eye identifacation devices, and the like. Usually used by goverments to track and keep people happy, or by companies to improve security and/or advertising. We've arrived at a point with the current day technology to make some of these things a reality. Ways to track all citizens, ways to simplify finances, and other things that would help control citizens and, in general, make their lives better.

When Novos begins to take over things, we will have the option of instituting change. This makes the technology of Science Fiction which would help people rule, an option. Public opinion of implimenting some of these things might not be very high. Esepecially if it's not sold properly. Some of them would invite hacking, identity theft, and bring up invasion of privacy issues.

Is the public dissention worth the things we can do with implamenting of new systems involving higher technology? Or should we stick with the tried and true levels of technology we have today? I wouldn't mind having a tracking chip in my neck if it meant that people could find me when I'm kidnapped, but that's just my opinion.

It would give the government immense control over the individual. If the government became corrupt, then it would be near unstoppable.

Well, I'm of two minds about this, which really doesn't help at all. I'll explain nonetheless.

I don't like it:
It seems that governments today are creeping closer and closer to the "super-state" politicalness of 1984. Facts are being changed, propaganda is being utilized, and 'Big Brother' has got an eye glued up your backside so far he can see out yer face. We have only to look to the recent wire-tapping bit from the U.S. to realize how far this has gone. Look at what people no longer ind surprising (even down-right acceptable for some...). This is kind of thing that got people accused of telling conspiracy theories as little as 5-10 years ago. The government is even refusing to follow its own rules on this one, and it's downright scary if you ask me.

What this is asking is "Would it be ok to do if people trusted us to do it?" and "Do we trust ourselves to do it?" I personally say "No." to both. It's not that I don't feel we couldn't do a responsible job of it, but once instituted, there are no garuntees. Privacy is a fairly basic human desire. By tracking and keeping tabs upon a large population risks will be incurred. As you noted, this would open up a whole new realm of information crime, and I feel it would go far beyond what anyone could reasonably predict.

That, and what exactly would we be watching for? If it's for commercial usage, that means that the nformation reaches a much larger group of people outside of our control and the possibility for potential crime skyrockets by thousands and thousands of percents. If it's for usage with the law, that opens up a legal can of worms. How much observation is too much? At what point woul we be turning the cameras (or whatever) off? Will people have a choice in whether or not they can be monitered? If so, again how much of an eye do we keep on them? If not, much harder to sell that idea publicaly, and will it be submittable as legal evidence? And for what percentage of the population will be moniterred in such a manner, as we obviously can't institute such a policy even nationwide without investing billions (not a good idea) and requiring obscene amounts of man-power.

And my weakest yet I think most important argument here (and odds are most predictable if you've been watching for a length of time) are the morals of such a system. As the government we would have a responsability for the safety of our citizens, yes. But we would also have a duty to uphold their civil liberties and basic rights as human beings.

*Busts out a little TJ*
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

So that's one mind.

The other mind while being much more concise makes an excellent point:
That could come in handy.

I don't like that mind. But it's there regardless.

Yes. Any/all information about you and your whearabouts/habits require you to allow that data to be accessible. In person.

The exception to that would be in cases in which this data is neccisary for trials.

This person was killed! *calls up the department and calls in the data from that area at the ETD* Oooh look! Bobby Jhon was there! He must have done the killing! CAll him in!

Now, the billions, yes, I agree that it would cost a bundle. I'm horrible when dealing with the economy, so I'll leave that to someone else to figure out. Not something I'm studied in.

So long as we kept the data for the sole use of upholding those 3 inalienable rights, then how can we be at fault for it?

No, we are an example of why it wouldn't work

I look at that and see yet another argument against doing this.

I do understand where you are going with how we have to balance a person's right to rpivacy weighed against the rights of the public's safety in certain situations ("The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." right Spock?). However, this once again draws parallels to what is currently happening in th U.S. with the wire-tapping scandal. How much is too much? At what point do we as a government over-step our boundaries?

Obviously access to such records would be very, very strict.

But honestly, how would you expect an average person to react if you told them that the governent was going to be keeping tabs on their activities?

Not cool enough to help justify this.

An excellent question.

But the thing here is that most people are blissfully ignorant of such things; not per-se the satellites thmselves, but I'd bet that if you told an average person the degree to which the government currently knows about who they are and what their activities are, I'd be willing to bet they'd be a tad disconcerted.

Is this something they should have to "get used to"? I'm all for a strong government, but this seems a tad underhanded to me (perhaps not the best diction there, however I trust my implication comes across).

I guess that would be alright, as long as we make fair laws. But come on, do we really want a Thought Police situation? We do not want some sort of 1984 situation on our hands.

2+2 = 5.