brauneyz wrote:
So, as a newbie here I'm still trying to figure out if you guys are anarchists, libertarians, or unknowns. Maybe your responses to this article will help me figure it out.
Quote:
The Homeland Security-funded project is Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST. Instead of focusing on whether you have hidden explosives or whether you're carrying a weapon, sensors and cameras located at security checkpoints would measure the natural signals coming from your body -- your heart rate, breathing, eye movement, body temperature and fidgeting.
Those physiological signs, measured together, will indicate whether you might have the desire or intent to do harm, project manager Robert Burns said.
"There's been a large field of research that ties your physical reactions to your mental state, your emotional state. We're looking for those signals that your body gives off naturally," Burns said.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/06/secu ... index.htmlIs the potential safety of this proposed system greater than the infringement on our liberties?
Alright, to get back to the original topic, I think that first of all I want to say that the idea of machines that are capable of monitoring people's physiological status in order to search out 'guilty people' is a really, really fucking scary one.
Any society that allowed such machines to be used on its members would, as one of your countrymen put it, have not security nor liberty and would deserve neither.
The willingness of the police state to pursue such courses of action is a chilling and grim one for any partisan of freedom. Any proposed use for such machines would obviously only be a prequel to widespread use in large US cities, monitoring citizens for abnormal behaviour. Having been dominated by fascist technoplutocracy for some time now, Western countries are nearing the point at which the state will be capable and willing to introduce technologically advanced total control techniques, resulting in a locked down totalitarian capitalist nightmare. Why the fuck wouldn't the state do that? That is, after all, its function and use, being dominated by the elite class of capitalists as it is.
Furthermore, I have something to say about Michael Moore. He is part of the establishment, and in no way represents a radical point of view. The problem we encounter here is a peculiar twisting of political words that occurs in the United States: for example, a Democrat, considered to be 'liberal' in the US, would be considered a political and social conservative in Europe and Canada. The thing is that to the rest of the world, the political spectrum available to voters in the US runs from centrist to hard-line neoconservative. There are practically no actual socialists in the American establishment.
That doesn't stop the American media personalities from constantly and consciously accusing various figures of being socialists and communists, though, even when the claim is completely ridiculous from any rational (non-fascist) point of view.
