Security

[SmokeHut]

With the evolution of security, it only seems that your freedoms are diluted.


Throughout history we've always adopted the "I'm going to let you kill someone. However, when you do; You will face consequences." approach.

This, usually works. However, with the advances in technology has now led us to a point where it's possible for people to "print" DNA, almost like a 3d printer. So when a person, is able to create a pathogen to drop a species. What sort of security measures will have to be taken? This isn't something that falls into the "do it first, punish later" category.

It would seem like a lot of "minority report" sort-of justice is placed on targets these days. Drone strikes in the middle-east would be a good example.

So, as I say. The evolution of technology is evolving the level of security required to protect people. However, at what cost will that eventually come to.

 

[ilovegold69]

We certainly don't just let people do what they want... The simple fact is that we cannot see into the future and know what actions a certain person might carry out before it's a problem. We stop what crime we can but resolve to maintain a line above where the effective prevention drops off as a function of intrusiveness. Ultimately it's society's decision as to what liberties they're willing to lose for a perceived heightened level of security.

Just because we have the ability to print dna does not mean that we have any idea on how to read or program dna. Worst case scenario is that someone with access to state of the art machinery decides to print a virus that would be much more easily obtained by harvesting a sample from a living person. We still haven't even located much of the common human genome, and what we have identified, has been done through finding similarities.

It is possible that someday we will have the facilities to program our own viruses, but this is a problem we won't encounter for quite some time. Humans already have a much more efficient method of destroying the human race (in the form of nuclear toys) and we haven't managed to kill ourselves yet.

 

This, usually works. However, with the advances in technology has now led us to a point where it's possible for people to "print" DNA, almost like a 3d printer. So when a person, is able to create a pathogen to drop a species. What sort of security measures will have to be taken? This isn't something that falls into the "do it first, punish later" category.

I take this to be an exaggeration? Yes, you're able to print DNA. Yes, you're able to create a pathogen. The means of doing both are heavily regulated for the purposes of containment, and malicious intent.

With the evolution of security, it only seems that your freedoms are diluted.

Which definition of security are you implying? If you're talking about the state of being free from danger, the idea itself is flawed. You're never in complete safety. We've made it so your safety isn't so easily compromised through laws. The boundaries will inevitably decrease as time goes on, and technology develops. I don't think it will come to a point where security is easily manipulated to significantly compromise your safety. Society will realize the bad that comes with evolution and human progression, and try to remove it from use. An example that comes to mind is genetically modified humans.

It would seem like a lot of "minority report" sort-of justice is placed on targets these days. Drone strikes in the middle-east would be a good example.

Unmanned aerial vehicles have been around since the 1950s. I could create a drone myself, even weaponize it. Post modern inventions being improved for easier use is also inevitable. I don't agree with the use, but It's effectiveness is undeniable. Machines malfunction, that's a given. Is it something we have to live with? Probably. The strikes are military affiliated. Are you saying it's wrong to take the life of a rival when a person isn't in physical control? I'd assume not, but the tone between the comparison is drastically different, without a doubt.

So, as I say. The evolution of technology is evolving the level of security required to protect people. However, at what cost will that eventually come to.

Can you give another example of a cause leading to increase in protection? I don't see protection from drones being a thing. The current odds of being killed from a drone are really small, even in middle-eastern countries, similar to getting struck by lightning.

 

[SmokeHut]

We certainly don't just let people do what they want... The simple fact is that we cannot see into the future and know what actions a certain person might carry out before it's a problem. We stop what crime we can but resolve to maintain a line above where the effective prevention drops off as a function of intrusiveness. Ultimately it's society's decision as to what liberties they're willing to lose for a perceived heightened level of security.

Just because we have the ability to print dna does not mean that we have any idea on how to read or program dna. Worst case scenario is that someone with access to state of the art machinery decides to print a virus that would be much more easily obtained by harvesting a sample from a living person. We still haven't even located much of the common human genome, and what we have identified, has been done through finding similarities.

It is possible that someday we will have the facilities to program our own viruses, but this is a problem we won't encounter for quite some time. Humans already have a much more efficient method of destroying the human race (in the form of nuclear toys) and we haven't managed to kill ourselves yet.

I was using the printing of DNA is an example. As it's created and sold now. Such as 3D printers were used by big corporations as they were not affordable to the average consumer. However, now accessible. The printing of DNA is great, if used correctly. If not, then as I said in the OP could be used to create biological weapons, from your bedroom.

Don't use that example as the only possibility. Think of the major organised crimes at the moment.. Drugs trade? Weapons trade? It wont be so long into the future when you're able to create these things from your home with "minimal" effort. Milling a pistol or assault rifle in the past was too difficult for the average joe, or time consuming. However, with the advancement in technology, it won't be out of reach to print an entire weapon from your bedroom. How is it possible to control such a measure? I'm guessing the same will be done with drugs. When you can print DNA, I'm sure you can print chemistry. This will pull the rug from under the majority of the organised crime gangs, then what will happen?

I take this to be an exaggeration? Yes, you're able to print DNA. Yes, you're able to create a pathogen. The means of doing both are heavily regulated for the purposes of containment, and malicious intent.

Yes of course it was an exaggeration. However, I wasn't speaking hypothetically. I am sure that the technology will be harnessed or create illegally. Whether or not it sees a consumer. It's impossible to imply that this type of technology will not be replicated by people intending to do harm. As far as I'm aware, the President of the US is already taking measures to protect his DNA.

http://www.marcgoodman.net/2012/09/27/hacking-the-presidents-dna/
( I haven't read this report, I just know of it ).

Which definition of security are you implying? If you're talking about the state of being free from danger, the idea itself is flawed. You're never in complete safety. We've made it so your safety isn't so easily compromised through laws. The boundaries will inevitably decrease as time goes on, and technology develops. I don't think it will come to a point where security is easily manipulated to significantly compromise your safety. Society will realize the bad that comes with evolution and human progression, and try to remove it from use. An example that comes to mind is genetically modified humans.

I guess I was aiming at the state being free from danger. Or at least, the implied odds of such. Whilst also presenting a narrative to those who wish to dilute your freedoms.

Unmanned aerial vehicles have been around since the 1950s. I could create a drone myself, even weaponize it. Post modern inventions being improved for easier use is also inevitable. I don't agree with the use, but It's effectiveness is undeniable. Machines malfunction, that's a given. Is it something we have to live with? Probably. The strikes are military affiliated. Are you saying it's wrong to take the life of a rival when a person isn't in physical control? I'd assume not, but the tone between the comparison is drastically different, without a doubt.

I think your misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was using the "minority-report" as an example. Targets are created and killed on the ground because they "could" present danger at a later time. If this sort-of security were to evolve then you could be looking at a pretty bleak future.

Another example would be the "no-fly list" this, again is another example of minority-report. You are prevented from doing something based on the fact you could potentially do something. When, you have done nothing illegal.

Can you give another example of a cause leading to increase in protection? I don't see protection from drones being a thing. The current odds of being killed from a drone are really small, even in middle-eastern countries, similar to getting struck by lightning.

I read a report that suggested 40 drone attacks per-day were used on average between 2014-2015, that's a pretty high number when you consider the collateral damage involved in one strike.

I'm not trying to provide an argument for proof of increased protection, I'm trying to debate what will be required when these sort of technologies are being created.

 

Yes of course it was an exaggeration. However, I wasn't speaking hypothetically. I am sure that the technology will be harnessed or create illegally. Whether or not it sees a consumer. It's impossible to imply that this type of technology will not be replicated by people intending to do harm. As far as I'm aware, the President of the US is already taking measures to protect his DNA.

The materials needed to even begin spreading a pathogen is confined within a biochemical lab. Do you think security measures aren't taken to assure public safety? This is one of the highest priorities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55881/

This book explains the possible risks of a biochemical lab, and how it's managed to negate those possibilities.

Many things are possible, but are likely to never happen. Nonetheless, people still take security measures out of self interest to feel at ease.

I guess I was aiming at the state being free from danger. Or at least, the implied odds of such. Whilst also presenting a narrative to those who wish to dilute your freedoms.

Humans are fragile beings. We're susceptible to many events that would cause harm to our bodies. I don't think there are those in power who deliberately feel the need to further weaken our freedom from danger. That seems too conspiracy-esque, without proper reason. If something were to be created that would diminish our freedom of danger (which happens all the time) it would be unintentional, and coincidental. Not sure if this is what you were implying from the get-go.

I think your misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was using the "minority-report" as an example. Targets are created and killed on the ground because they "could" present danger at a later time. If this sort-of security were to evolve then you could be looking at a pretty bleak future.

Another example would be the "no-fly list" this, again is another example of minority-report. You are prevented from doing something based on the fact you could potentially do something. When, you have done nothing illegal.

These procedures are incidental, specifically within the jurisdiction of the US. When there are terrorist attacks that become one of the greatest disasters to your country, these procedures are to be expected. It's fearmongering coupled with sincere intentions of safety. The measures and equations of who to evaluate are definitely discriminatory, and because of that, the targets aren't diverse, they're singular. If you're of a particular background not perused by said stalkers, your security is heavily increased. It's really a matter of prejudice. The drones have attacked US citizens too. Like I said, machines having faults are a given. These occurrences don't happen often enough to be worried of, especially if you aren't targeted.

I read a report that suggested 40 drone attacks per-day were used on average between 2014-2015, that's a pretty high number when you consider the collateral damage involved in one strike.

I'm not trying to provide an argument for proof of increased protection, I'm trying to debate what will be required when these sort of technologies are being created.

Where are these attacks being done? Were they active when there was conflict between the two opposing countries it was sent from and to? These attacks are specific, and not likely to happen out of the areas the drones were sent to.

How can we debate what security measures will be taken if the event is unknown? Not really a debate, more so a speculation discussion.

 

[SmokeHut]

The materials needed to even begin spreading a pathogen is confined within a biochemical lab. Do you think security measures aren't taken to assure public safety? This is one of the highest priorities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55881/

This book explains the possible risks of a biochemical lab, and how it's managed to negate those possibilities.

Many things are possible, but are likely to never happen. Nonetheless, people still take security measures out of self interest to feel at ease.



Humans are fragile beings. We're susceptible to many events that would cause harm to our bodies. I don't think there are those in power who deliberately feel the need to further weaken our freedom from danger. That seems too conspiracy-esque, without proper reason. If something were to be created that would diminish our freedom of danger (which happens all the time) it would be unintentional, and coincidental. Not sure if this is what you were implying from the get-go.



These procedures are incidental, specifically within the jurisdiction of the US. When there are terrorist attacks that become one of the greatest disasters to your country, these procedures are to be expected. It's fearmongering coupled with sincere intentions of safety. The measures and equations of who to evaluate are definitely discriminatory, and because of that, the targets aren't diverse, they're singular. If you're of a particular background not perused by said stalkers, your security is heavily increased. It's really a matter of prejudice. The drones have attacked US citizens too. Like I said, machines having faults are a given. These occurrences don't happen often enough to be worried of, especially if you aren't targeted.



Where are these attacks being done? Were they active when there was conflict between the two opposing countries it was sent from and to? These attacks are specific, and not likely to happen out of the areas the drones were sent to.

How can we debate what security measures will be taken if the event is unknown? Not really a debate, more so a speculation discussion.

The attacks were reported for Syria, by the United States ( I believe ) cannot remember exactly.

I was more referring to the actual criteria for being a target, over malfunctions / accidental deaths. I.e, that person would be killed for being a potential threat, as opposed to any sort of justice. It would appear that the rules of engagement are not applied.

Also, as far as the debate goes. It hasn't gone down the path I was hoping for. I was trying to provide examples of technology that will require more freedoms to be lost. And what freedoms you'd be willing to loose to have the technology.

However, it has just turned into speculation.

 

[deadmou5e]

i blame everything on america, they don't do it for the reasons they state. it's hard to say but i think we're moving to the 'minority report' approach within our lifetime (young generation)