Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[Baffler]

The difference though, is that these hypothetical persons have not actually committed a crime.

[TD1]

You could make it voluntary. Make it their choice.

[GiglameshDespair]

"Can we monitor you in case you're actually a terrorist?"

[TD1]

Pretty much, yes. And the ones that say no, those are the ones you track

[smjjames]

Pretty much, yes. And the ones that say no, those are the ones you track

Meaning theres no choice?

What if you, a non-terrorist, say no because of privacy reasons?

[GiglameshDespair]

Pretty much, yes. And the ones that say no, those are the ones you track

Meaning theres no choice?

What if you, a non-terrorist, say no because of privacy reasons?

Why would a non-terrorist object to having the government specifically watching everything they do, see and say?

[Neonivek]

By the by Surgically implanted tracking devices isn't a hypothetical piece of technology... It already exists...

For animals.

[alway]

It's not like there's no precedent for such identifiers; it was implemented pretty efficiently a little over 70 years ago in the early 1940s.

[TD1]

My second post was pretty much a joke. The first one was "it's voluntary, but if you don't take it, you don't get in." It's an extreme solution I wouldn't recommend, given it's a tad demeaning. Edit: Demeaning's not the right word. Violatory? Is that a word? ehh. A violation, anyway.

What's more sensible is trying to assimilate the Muslim population better, or a heightened controlling of the borders, or both.

[LordBucket]

Why would a non-terrorist object to having the government specifically watching everything they do, see and say?

Because governments are composed of people. And people sometimes do horrible, horrible things.

[Graknorke]

Why would a non-terrorist object to having the government specifically watching everything they do, see and say?

Because governments are composed of people. And people sometimes do horrible, horrible things.

That was definitely sarcasm on GD's part.

[LordBucket]

That was definitely sarcasm on GD's part.

Sometime's it's hard to tell.

[Vattic]

Uh, electronic surveillace bracelet are already widely used for prisoners on parole, it's not exactly a new technology.

Seems an odd option for such potentially serious criminals. The only thing preventing someone removing a tag is the potential penalty if caught (and it doesn't stop them reliably). If you were removing it for an attack why care? At most you'd have to take care not to alert the officials you'd been tampering with it.

[IronyOwl]

I would assume it was a political "This needs to stop so here's a way we could stop it" speech, rather than a legitimate plan he felt would be feasible to implement and effective at its stated goal.

[Neonivek]

That was definitely sarcasm on GD's part.

Sometime's it's hard to tell.

Frankly I don't exactly prescribe to attributing Poe's law to everything it is more:

A Parody no matter how extreme is indistinguishable from the real thing if what it is imitating is just as extreme.

So putting tracker chips inside people COULD be a parody... but it isn't something someone wouldn't already say.

---

For example people saying that "Islam" is the problem (as opposed to extremist groups within these countries) COULD be a parody... But Frank Miller happened.