Google glasses

(I think he knows)

Microchips contain a unique code which, when scanned, brings up the owner's contact details from a national database. There are currently several databases in operation.

Government figures show 58% of dog owners have already had their dogs microchipped voluntarily.
Dogs in England must be microchipped from 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21341577

 

Mike Suicide

I have heard of 'Moore's Law'.
But you are theorising something that is possibly going to occur or be rolled out in twenty years time.
It takes the UK government 10 odd years to finish building a high speed rail network - let alone fund and then implement a nano-tech monitoring revolution in the next twenty years.
I'm not saying the technology could never happen - it is just not going to happen in the next twenty years.
In twenty years they (the UK government) might have started clinical trials and be on the cusp of debating the ethical implications of it's possible use, and I suspect this will be the case in most other countries, too.

Well, they tried I.D cards here a few years ago, and it never panned out.
One government can propose something and then another can tear it all down.
It could be possible after we are all long gone, the acceptance of implanted chips for - say - a replacement for cash cards might be available if you wanted.
But full scale mandatory chips that monitor us all is not going to happen in our life time.

If he was 'on the money' why don't we have such things in our living rooms?
The technology is there to do just that.
Why do we have access to the Internet and as much information as we could ever wish for etc etc etc.
If we are heading for a tyrannical future - we are going very, very slowly, indeed.

All that you say might happen - just not in our life time. I'd put money on it.

 

odonII

You just posted yourself dog chipping will be mandatory by 2016. Where does the line get drawn? Next thing, criminals, sex offenders, gays. Then children in the name of "safety".

Did you know the UK has a treaty with US that any US prosecutor can have a British citizen extradited to the US for prosecution. It however does not work the other way for the British.

After 9/11 in this country the president was happily given "emergency war time powers" that he has NOT given back. In fact the president has taken those policies to another level giving him and the government even more power. People are easily scared and manipulated into giving governments more power and control over their citizens.

I said Orwells ideologies were right on the money, not the technologies he predicted. Like I said these are the beginning stages and these technologies are in their infancy. In the next couple of decades we will see more of this. It's already started with dogs.

 

Mike Suicide

The chip in dogs isn't to keep track of them.
I purposely put in the part about the percentage of people who are happy for their dogs to be tagged. It isn't some great controversy.
We already tag criminals. Have done for quite some time.
Why would homosexuality be something a person would have to be tagged for? Be theoretical, not hysterical.

Do you mean this?:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-extradition-treaty-is-fair-and-balanced.html

It works both ways.

Such as?

By hysteria?

I know. The ideology was to monitor citizens in their homes 24/7.
That isn't happening. Seven decades have passed already

I think you are getting enough right to be plausible but too much is wrong or just too fanciful to be 'on the money'.
I could argue we are all going to hell starting a week next Tuesday - but the reality isn't quite as troubling as all of that.
It's well argued, though, I'll give you that (if that's not too patronising)

Like I said, it is all feasible but not in the next few decades.

 

We've got facism starting to control our policital processes and groups of people trying to get laws passed based on religous beliefs. It's already happening with Pro Lifer's, and trust if these people come into power they will stop at nothing to legislate "morality", and homosexuallity goes against what many consider to be "moral".

Actually the British authorities have to demonstrate a prima facie case in an American court to extradite. The same is not true in reverse.

Recently there was a case where a British studend faced extratition to the US for posting links on his website to other websites that posted unauthorized copyrighted material. What he did was not illegal in England but was illegal in the US. He ended up waiving extradition came to court over here and paying a shit ton of fines.

You think any British court is gonna get an American extratided for something like that? Yeah right, like you said, when pigs fly.

Example:

Since the Patiot Act was passed after 9/11 anyone suspected of terrorism can be detained indefinitly without trial or due process. This Act was recently codified into Law in by the Obama Administration.

The President can also wage war against any Nation, Organization or Person found to be a treat against the United States, without seeking approval of Congress or following the usual "war time protocols"

Also anyone suspected to terrorism can have their phones tapped and be monitored and searched without a warrant. The thing is, there's not concrete definition of "terrorist" it's what ever the government wants it to be.

Yes. There are people so scared of a being attacked they are letting government take away their liberties one by one the name of "national security". If you watch the news it's just filled scare tactics playing on people's fears of nuclear assault, gun rampages and terroism. When people are scared they will believe and do just about anything to feel "safe"

But it is happening. Everything we do on the Internet, Facebook, Google, and out Cell phones is tracked and catalogged.

It's already started and has been going on for some time. And biometric technologies are already out there, we're are just seeing things at their infancy.

Now I'm not saying this is "guaranteed" to happen, but with the path this world is on, politically and socially, it definitly seems like the road we are taking.



[/QUOTE]

 

http://whitehouse.gov1.info/nsa/index.html



"In an effort to provide even better government services, the NSA has developed special software that unobtrusively collects important information about American consumers in their homes and offices.
While we prefer not to use the term "Flame virus", this data collection program is designed to remotely control common computer functions such as logging keyboard strokes, activating computer microphones and cameras, taking computer screen shots, extracting geolocation data from images, downloading personal files, and sending and receiving commands and data through Bluetooth wireless technology. To reduce the impact on our citizens, the remote data collection program can be periodically embedded in routine operating system software updates. This information will be transmitted for processing and storage in our new $2 billion NSA data center in Bluffdale, Utah scheduled to open in September 2013."

:smoking:

 

Because they don't understand it.

It doesn't have to be permamently implanted to serve the same purpose.

Quick search and:

They aren't THAT dangerous, but I guess you were trying to point out that people blindly accept what they are given, and I agree with that.

It is a matter of time, but I don't think it will happen so fast. We aren't focusing on science as much as we did during cold war. Plus it is harder to make some ground-breaking discovery as it is harder to make for example research on humans.

But does this kind of videotaping cause any problems?
What I had in mind was for example following someone with camera or tracking him in a way.

Maybe not perform surgeries, but inhance body functions in some way. Like killing cancer cells, helping to regenerate some parts of the body.

It is just an estimation.

But still while living in this false democracy people have something to say. I don't think rich ones would want their children to be implanted.

Yes, but imho it is not as fast as you think.

Yes, today ethics have a lot to say and therefore it isn't so simple to just make something controversial.

Isn't it just USA? I don't think that states are that powerfull to rule whole world and do whatever they want. Russians and Chinese and to some point UE still have something to say.

Unless one is smart enought to prevent this. There is huge black market running on the internet and having wonderfull time.

That's the point, it is still to early to say what will happen. We can try to foresee, but there will be a lot of important events meantime

 

I have a feeling they won't. You'll have to trust me on that one.

I presumed you were saying the U.S could extradite UK citizens, but the UK couldn't extradite U.S citizens.
I see you don't mean that.
Although, I thought you might suggest it was lop-sided - that is why I posted the second link:

Sir Scott Baker’s Commission conducted an exhaustive, meticulous and considered review. And it reached the only conclusion that could be supported by the facts: that the US-UK treaty in its current form is fair and balanced.

Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause. However, an independent legal review carried out by Sir Scott Baker found that "there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and the reasonable suspicion test. There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States.

If you wish to argue Sir Scott Baker is wrong - you are free to do so.

The assertion you seem to be making is that the U.S can pluck UK citizens from the UK at will. The truth is there is a home secretary and a couple of courts in the way of that process.

Why is there so many inmates in Guantanamo waiting for release but with nowhere to go?
If the U.S was so powerful why would it not just ignore the inmates 'Human Rights' and just send them back home?

To a certain degree, the U.S reminds me of Oz The Great and Powerful - and we all know what he really was.

These conversations do quickly become Americentric.
The rest of the world soon slips away.
We could be hear all year discussing the U.S and it's laws etc.
The e.gs you highlight are controversial if you take either extreme (left or right).
This, though, being a country where a person can shoot another dead for attempting to enter their home, and get away with it.
If the U.S was wishing to enslave and monitor every individual - why on earth would they let them own guns/rifles?
I think the thing with the U.S is it is extreme on the surface, and nothing is done by halves.
It is open to interpretation.

Well, I actually meant your hysteria.

You have to sign a T and C contract with an ISP and Social Networks etc, and they have the right to retain information. If you don't like it - don't sign up for it. I believe most ISPs retain certain information for 3 years then it is deleted.
You raise these concerns but I bet you happily post away on social networks, and chatter away to your friends on your mobile phone.

It all seems to be in it's infancy, and it always seems to be the road we are all heading towards (when I say we, I mean the U.S nobody really talks about other countries - though, the UK might get a mention).
The literature you mention, and untold others e.g's have us all on our way to some form of doom.
I've been waiting about 7-8 years for half of the U.S population to be killed off and buried in Fema Coffins.
Never seems to happen. Unfortunately?

 

You asked about the powers of the AMERICAN president. So you of course the answers are going to be Americentric. As for everything stop blindly following your politicians and leaders they are not looking out for your best interest.

 

Yeah, I know what the microchips in dogs are... my point is that it is getting us used to the idea of having information implanted in a living creature.

They are now able to implant synthetic DNA into a host cell. This will obviously be used someday to implant information into humans and people are so complacent that they will allow it to happen.

 

That's true. Fair enough. I was trying to encompass the whole debate about the way the world is heading, and the e.g's/participants often mentioned.

I'm not. I'm trying to be fair and honest. I hope I'm talking about reality rather than if's but's or maybe's, and throwing everything including the kitchen sink into what might happen. I think you are too quick to drag your prejudices into the conversation. If you have nothing else to add to what I said - well, then it's been pleasant talking to you. See you around - no doubt.

 

first videos shot with google glass