I’m sorry but LawDog just articulated quite a few things that the system could be used for.
Not a single one of which could actually be reasonably carried out, or would have any purpose to law enforcement.
I suggested one just to get you started. My thought was more of the taxation based on where you drive and then that being used to link you to patterns of behavior deemed inappropriate at a later date.
First, there is absolutely nothing stopping such a situation from occuring currently using technology no more advanced than a corner posted patrolman; as evidenced by the historic success of various secret police agencies in subjugating their citizenry.
Secondly, and much more importantly, the forces permitting the (d)evolution of such a socio-political environment will not be halted by the (attempted)limitation of hardware technology to government... are you joking??
Notice, I didn’t complain about the technology at a border crossing, where government control is appropriate.
Yes of course, and government control of criminal behavior through technology is not appropriate in that the definition of criminal behavior may some day include something that you may not agree with.
I simply mentioned something I observed the other day.
Really? Well then, I am going to mention something that I observe each and every day.
Each and every day, I observe the profound life-altering impact had upon the people in my community who have commited no transgression other than to attempt to get through their day, by individuals who feel that their personal deviant needs supersede the personal and sacred rights of all and any others.
Each and every day, I observe the unbelievable workload of law enforcement officers and other dedicated and honorable professionals who sift through mountains of material describing what no human being should be subjected to hearing or seeing in a LIFETIME, with limited resources and limited recourse, and nary a complaint.
Each and every day I watch as these men and women, stretched to the literal limits of their capabilities, provide comfort and consolation to the victims that they serve, and attempt to provide them answers that make some sense.
So when the opportunity avails itself to employ a useful tool, and it is met with a bunch of nonsensical rambling about "possibilities" and "police states" and "tracking"... when people begin tossing out universal, unfounded, and frankly idiotic, statements suggesting that law enforcement agencies are likely to begin databasing customers at liquor stores and selling their information to MADD... yeah, I find it sort of irritating.
Honestly though, you seem to be truly are naïve when it comes to mission creep, i.e.
Yeah well, with all due respect that would mean a great deal more to me coming from someone who didn't feel the route to preventing leftist social reform was the limitation of advanced technology.
Do you honestly think you can stop this train? Technology is not your problem. Society is. Your major concern should be ensuring the availability of technology to the citizenry, so that their will can be carried out. If you honestly believe you can keep technology out of the hands of the people who are most likely to commission it you are delusional.
you shouldn’t have to be subject to surveillance of any kind by the government because it represents an invasion of your privacy on an unprecedented scale. No matter how many crimes could be solved, it doesn’t matter, it is a moot point. A free society is not a surveyed society. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty and being surveyed night and day is not freedom nor is it a presumption of innocence it is a violation of your rights as a free man. While you may have nothing to hide, that does NOT give the government the right to look. There is a difference between that and what you are saying that you do not grasp.
I am not, nor have I ever, advocated undue government surveillance. The idea that the system we are discussing in any way represents government surveillance is ridiculous. As discussed, even if it were to be authorized as a databasing system, the information it would collect would be absolutely useless in that it would be completely random. It would make infinitely more sense to perform traditional surveillance on a subject than to attempt to decipher random contacts performed by a blind system.
This system is no more a surveillance or investigative tool than the genital enhancement spam in your email is medical advice or a love letter.
In this case, the “fear” you decry is actually not born of ignorance, but rather is reinforced from the plentiful examples of government control abused in the past. Fear of government power is one of the greatest emotions a free man can have and is a must if a government is to be kept honest. That is why you don’t understand LawDog and other’s worries because you don’t understand the principle nor do you, apparently, understand the history that makes such fear a genuine and moral ideal thatall free men should cherish.
I do not cherish what you apparently define as freedom to the extent that I am willing to cripple the infrastructure which protects the freedoms the rest of us enjoy... sorry. The rest of the society has a right to enjoy their lives in relative peace, comfort, and safety... even if it cause you a bit of disconcert.
Which brings me back to your very first quote. Fear of things that you cannot articulate, when such "things" could infringe upon your rights as a free man is not ignorance, stupidity, paranoia, or balderdash. It is the hallmark of a free man, an indication of principle, and the Basis for our Bill of Rights. You are free to sacrifice your right to live like a free man, but don't presume to sacrifice mine.
Really? You are willing to limit the ability of the keepers of your community to do their jobs in order to stand on hallowed principles that cannot be explained in practice but assuredly are valid by someone's reckoning?
Let us hope Deavis, that you maintain such inordinately high principles at such a time as your loved one's eve collides with mine.
