Aggression Detector Keeps the Peace

Oh good grief... Arrest before the crime. We sure don't need that here in the Land of the Free (with the world's highest percentage of citizens in prison).

Fascinating technology, to be sure, and maybe I'm overly cynical. But this seems like a horrible opportunity cost. What else could those bright engineers and scientists be doing that'd be less morally cloudy?

Can't they develop a lie detector for political speeches instead? The world would be a much better place for that. We'd no longer have to assume they're all lying, because we could then finally find the ones who're not.

This should be a similar technology, right?

Hi andyhorning, Remember 1984, by George Bernard Shaw? Mind you I love the Idea about using lie detectors on politicians, that would be poetic justice indeed. We here in the UK know that our politicans are lying as soon as they open their mouths, that is the reason why we never take any notice about what they are saying. Another peculiarity to the UK is that there is now a citizens revolt against big brother here. In the UK there is a cctv camera to every 14 citizens and we are watched from when we leave home to when we come home, no matter how long the journey. In fact, the average citizen is caught on cctv camera 300 times every day. This is why I go in diguise sometimes, not because I am a criminal, but that our government is making criminals out of all of us! We already have laws now that means that a person can be detained without trial for no reason at all other than maybe our neighbour or the local policeman doesn't like our face. All this in a western democracy? If this new system of aggresion recognising cctv come into practice here, then I am afraid it will lead to nobody opening their mouths at all here when they are outside of their own home. This means that if I ever criticise our government aggresively while in my local town center then I will immediatly be arrested! I might as well start digging my own grave.

Don't you find it odd that in all "western democracies" (of which there are, by law, none...they were supposed to be republics under constitutions instead) where people can hire and fire their leaders, that guns are increasingly forbidden?

How is it that people can be trusted to fire leaders, but not carry weapons?

I know that this is a subject in which emotion and government education outweighs facts, but the history of civil disarmament is 100% compelling if you allow the lessons to sink in.

An order to disarm prompted the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" here in the USA.

Unfortunately, we've allowed ourselves, worldwide, apparently, to be worse than disarmed physically...we've become so ignorant about history and the nature of politicians that we've become befuddled sheep being led to the usual end for such creatures.

Hi andyhorning, Yes you are right! Here in the UK a few years ago we had a nutter who went into a primary school and shot a few children and teachers, some of who died. Our then government decided to ban all hand guns that were legally held, when that was anounced I said to a friend that this school shooting was the excuse our government had been looking for to ban all handguns. We have always had champion handgun shooters here, in the Olympics and other international contests, so now people like me who have followed this sport for years have to travel to France to practice, a round trip for me of 500 miles. Since this ban there have been a 100 fold increase in shootings here by people with illegally held guns, mainly by drug dealers and people who break into peoples homes to steal, in other words, burglers. I myself have a legally held rifle, but if a burglar with a handgun breaks into my house in the middle of the night and threatens me, and I shoot him dead with my rifle, it is I who will go to prison for many years. Where is my justice in this? I know why our government banned handguns, and wants to ban any form of firearm, they are shit scared that there could be a revolt by the citizens of this country against our big brother government. They are now going to put a blackbox device in every motorcar in the UK, which will be tracked by satellite, under the excuse of that we will have to pay for every mile we drive, a form of tax. My reservations about this one is, that our leaders, those in power will be able to track our every movement! This is much worse than what Stalin or Hitler ever devised, and we call ourselves a democracy?, don't make me laugh. I would appreciate your thoughts on this one?

This is a very old story with no new twists. Hitler did not disarm the Germans, his democratically elected predecessors did that or the NAZIs would never have been so effective with their coercion.

But you know, if we could tell which/when politicians actually tell the truth, we'd be doing an invaluable service to humanity. Instead of dismissing all politicians as liars, and thereby dismissing the good ones before they can have any effect, we'd be able to objectively deal with the realities at hand.

Fire the liars; that is to say most of them. And among those who're telling the truth, we can then sort which ones make the most sense with honestly rendered ideologies.

Anybody want to work on such a project? I have political connections, and I know where to get some really amusing test subjects...

We could execute potential murderers. Didn't they make a movie about this premise a few years back with Tom Cruise in it?

A system like this could have value in alerting humans to judge the situation.

Perhaps not to make an arrest so much as to provide a timely intervention.

Mark

Next step will be for everyone to have a drug delivery system installed on their arm(?)

So that when aggresion or another emotion is detected the appropriate countermeasure of drug is injected!!

Not a place I'd like to live in... John.

John,

Ditto.

I can just see some smug clerk smirking at me while refusing to accept a valid return of something, knowing I can't argue.

What kind of world will it be for our children?

And in response to another member's post# 4:

I didn't read that work (1984) by George Bernard Shaw, but I did read a work coincidentally by the same name written by George Orwell.

Regards,

Greg

Well, Shaw and Orwell were both gaunt socialists with the same first name. One can easily mistake them at a distance. Particularly if you ignore Shaw's beard.

I think it's ironic, however, that 1984 was supposed to be an anti-Stalin book, when Stalin shared, of course, the same political ideology as Orwell. And much of Orwell's inspiration came from the socialist policies and offices (Ministry of Truth) of England.

When will we learn?

...Sadly, history shows that we will never learn.

The thing that has dwarfed anything else as far as taking away our some of our constitutional rights is the so called "War on Drugs". It is however without doubt the most successful agricultural price support system in history. Somehow, the simple logic that when you make something illegal, you lose the ability to control it has escaped most of our politicians.

I am not in favor of drug use, but think the present situation where property can be seized without proper legal redress, homes can be entered without warrants, personal property can be searched, etc. Our prisons are overflowing with people convicted of non-violent drug offenses, the high cost of drugs is responsible for much of the crimes committed against people and property, and on and on. Instead of decriminalizing them, handling drugs similar to the way we deal with the "other drug" alcohol, taxing it heavily and using the proceeds for drug education (prevention), treatment and enforcement of laws against driving under the influence etc, we have created a nightmare and a source of revenue for criminals, terrorists and corrupt officials.

I have heard it said that politicians want to ban assault rifles and the like because they can penetrate (their) armored limousines. I don't believe that, but then again I can't disbelieve it 100% either.

People should have gone to prison over Ruby Ridge and Waco, but they were pretty much whitewashed.

Our governments first responsibility is to protect its citizens but you wouldn't know that from much that goes on.

I truly love my country, but I made the unhappy observation years back, during the cold war in fact, that the government most likely to cause me harm was my own. How many Americans have been harmed or abandoned by our government "for the good of the country"? I'm thinking "missing" prisoners of war, Americans unfairly detained by foreign powers, people living downwind of nuclear tests, soldiers exposed to nuclear tests and so on.

Big government becomes unmanageable by its nature and it seems more intent on regulating its citizens than the things that could (and do) harm them. I want the government to be able to do whatever is necessary to fight terrorism, and I have no problem at all with Guantanamo. But, when it comes to imprisoning an American citizen, indefinitely, stripped of his constitutional guarantees, then I very much fear we are on a slippery slope because the history of these things is that they get more and more broadly applied. Bureaucracies (substitute governments), regardless of the noble purposes of their origination, eventually become preoccupied with their own self aggrandisement, preservation and accumulation of power.

I use to listen to Radio Moscow on shortwave sometimes because I was so amused and fascinated by the way they twisted the current events of the day. I read a copy of USSR magazine (it was like LIFE magazine) in the library and got such a kick out its ridiculous articles showcasing heroes and heroines, like Petra the happy socialist tractor driver and whatnot, that I filled out a card for a subscription. I guess I had gotten one copy, when I read somewhere that the postal service kept a record of subscribers, and furnished it to the government. I think I was in 7th grade, but I got such a chill and so angry over that, I still remember it well. So, I never sent in the money, and it stopped after one more issue. But that somebody, somewhere in my government would put me on some sort of list with communist sympathizers with no idea at all that it was for the completely opposite reason, upset and frustrated me. How can you defend yourself against such a remote, faceless act?

Sorry for the tirade ... just venting.

Greg

I'm with you, my libertarian friend. I'm betting I'm on every list of potential whatevers our government maintains.

But how many people know how long this has been going on? Did y'all know that it was in 1939 that FDR started the CDI (Custodial Detention Index) that was used in the Japanese/German/Italian-American roundup? There's some good evidence to suggest that the executive orders used in those civilian detentions were written well before Pearl Harbor, and that the first was signed before FDR was supposed to even know about the surprise attack?

Politics is like dental hygiene. If you don't keep brushing away the never-sleeping accumulation of infectious gunk, you get stinking rot.

Andy,

I hear you!

Like I said I'm 100% in favor of doing whatever is necessary to fight terrorism, but these things have to be closely monitored. I well remember the voluminous files on innocent citizens collected by the FBI and others during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras.

Left unchecked these things quickly run out of control.

BTW: While I certainly have a Libertarian streak, I do believe in the proper role of government and that we need one. I just feel it should be no bigger than absolutely necessary (plus 20% or so to accommodate human "inefficiencies" in almost anything we do). Our present government is probably at least twice the size it should ideally be in my view.

Greg

There are some "Big L" Libertarians (Libertarian Party members) who may sound like anarchists, but there can never be such a thing as humans without government at all. It has never happened, and it can't happen. So when people make claims about the hysteria that'd result if we had no government, they might as well worry about what will happen to police jobs when we all become perfect.

You sound like a "small l" libertarian like me. You believe that government's role is like every other role...it should be focused and limited.

You and I have to follow written laws...why don't politicians? The lawful situation I want is called Rule of Law; that rare and comfortable state of affairs in which politicians follow rules just like you and I do.

I'd argue that the only real anarchy to fear is lawless power. Real anarchy is when you have power without limits, and politicians without restraint.

I do indeed lose sleep over this kind of anarchy.

Andy,

You said:

"You and I have to follow written laws...why don't politicians?"

Great point .... the biggest joke in the world is that they pass laws on discrimination, hiring practices, workplace rules, healthcare, social security etc and then, either exempt themselves "because their work is too important not to have a completely free hand", or have separate retirement and health plans that are unaffected by any legislation they pass for "the rest of us".

Because of the mess our healthcare system is in (I bring a child to a group practice and there are more people doing paperwork for insurance and whatnot then there are health professionals) I am in favor of a government run basic healthcare plan for all, provided that employers or individuals are free to add on to it or go outside it in any way they wish. I think it is a public health issue in addition to the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" guarantee that can't exist without your health. People who have worked and paid taxes their whole lives can lose everything over a health crisis before qualifying for any government help. I am paying taxes for a multitude of retired "public service" workers here, who have free health insurance for themselves and their spouse the rest of their lives. A person with a pre-existing condition finds it next to impossible to get any kind of coverage. In any case it really gets my goat when a politician gets up and seriously states that "we can't afford to provide medical care for everyone (read ME)" when I am paying taxes to give them the best medical plan in the world.

Our founding fathers did a wonderful job on checks and balances, but the politicians and bureaucrats have been undermining it ever since and it scares me too.

Greg

I can't send you links to the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, or to my columns on healthcare policy because these boards are for engineering, not policy discussions. But please look deeper into what politicians always do with healthcare before you support USSR-style policy.

Think about what it is you really want, and what's the best way to get it. Do you want health insurance, or health care...the two are diametrically opposed, you know.

And do you believe that government will both fund doctors and the industries that support them (medical equipment and pharmaceuticals) as effectively as the free market can?

Give me an example of a government invention...just one. Then look at how many things have been done outside the greasy hands of politics.

I make my living in medical equipment design, and I can tell you that it's fact that we could cut the costs of equipment and healthcare delivery itself by at least 70% if we'd get politicians out of the operating room.

Just for personal edification, do a little research into what a medical equipment company has to do get started, develop a product and sell it in the USA. Look at the ratio of medical engineering to social/regulatory engineering, and you'll wake up screaming every night.

We can get a product to market at least twice as fast in Italy as we can in the USA. That's embarrassing.

andyhorning,

I understand all you are saying believe me, and I didn't come to my belief easily.

However, the entire rest of the developed world has some form of nationalized health care .. I mean care, not insurance, because care is a more holistic approach which encompasses prevention.

It's not like we have some well working private system, with the government not involved. A large percentage of our population is not insured, and our life expectancy, infant mortality rates etc are below many other developed countries.

We already have government regulation of insurance companies, drug and medical equipment companies etc, and large bits and pieces of nationalized healthcare, including Medicare, Medicaid, military hospitals, VA (veterans administration) healthcare, hospitals getting tax reductions for treating the indigent, etc etc, plus various "plans" and "aid" by most of the states, cities and local governments. Department after department, layer upon layer, it is a patchwork of the worst kind.

By imposing the cost of worker health insurance on larger companies, we add to their costs, and make it harder to compete in the global arena. Why should it be an employer's responsibility, and not everyones? Some companies are now paying as much or more for healthcare than they pay for some of their raw materials. Here in good old New York, all hospital bills by law, have a premium of about 20% added into charges to individuals or insurance companies to cover people who cannot afford to pay.

We have the best healthcare in the world, but only for those who are well insured or can afford to pay. The others get varying degrees of lower quality care, and/or walk about among us sick.

Of course the government is inefficient, but so are most large companies and anything else that humans are involved in. The simple fact of the matter is that the government is already so heavily involved in health issues, but in such a disorganized often contradictory way. Combining it all can't possibly be any worse.

Having served in the military, where the goal was to keep a person in good health, you got sick, you got treated, simple as that.

There has to be a better way. Truman and Nixon, among others both wanted to institute a national health plan but were discouraged from doing so. I don't see it as a right-wing vs left-wing issue at its root, but just as something that will happen. It is inevitable, plain and simple, just like "metrication" and Bush's latest band-aid suggestion is just another half hearted, further complication on an already ridiculously convoluted landscape.

If there is some bio terrorist attack, or pandemic, who is responsible for responding? The government of course. We are presently even contributing to the Iraqi national health care system, when we don't even have one! The present system is broken beyond repair.

I would like to see a unified basic system, with features to promote individual responsibility where practical, and the ability to add to it or go around it at will.

I believe that health is too important to leave just to government, but too important not to make it a government responsibility also. I also believe it is as important as any national security issue. A healthy population is in everyone's interest.

By the way, I am insured and in good health thankfully.

Greg

At the head of the line of people who want to block a universal health care system is the AMA, who fear the cost accountibility this will bring, which it has brought to the Canadian and UK systems.

What it has also bought is caps on doctor's billings, to the point where some doctors book off 1-2 weeks/month as that hits their cap.

US doctors glory in their well paid status and will spend heavily to protect it.

What you need to do is bring in tort reform as well as doctor wage caps as some doctors pay $500,000/year for malpractice insurance, due to spurious lawsuits(for the most part) These fees vary enormously by specialty.

Another enemy of the people is hte crowd of health care unions who have almost broken the system in Canada.

They have received a cost of living increase every year for the past 40 years as well as 2-3% wage inscrease.

Common sweepers get $20/hour.

Nurses have almost killed their profession by wage militancy. In defence the doctors only use nurses for things only nurses can do. All the other tasks, washing and changing etc are all now done by aides. What else can you do with wages at $60/hour. So nurses work 15 hours/week, and get $900 and do not want more. If the hosptal will not do that the nurse resigns and goes to a agemcy.

Hospitals are forced to hire nurses by the hour at $75 from agencies.

Greed is killing the whole system

I'm no fan of the AMA, but they were actually opposed to socialized healthcare when Teddy Roosevelt proposed it initially. And don't assume that doctors are rolling in the dough. They used to be; that's for sure. But the tables have turned dramatically.

I'll agree that greed is killing the whole system, but it's not doctors' greed.

Greg, you're obviously a smart guy who sees a good part of the political problem. But you, along with just about everybody else on the planet, have swallowed the government Cool Aid, and think that if government doesn't do something, it won't get done. That's just not true. Look at who responded first to Katrina...it was private charities who were repelled by foolish politicians!

The free market can raise more capital and do far more than all the governments on earth combined. The problem, we think, is that they don't do what's "needed," because they think of only the bottom line. But that's terribly wrong. Serving needs IS the bottom line. You make money by anticipating and filling needs. That's what the free market does, and it does it without coercion...unlike government.

This is a paradigm shift, I know. I came to my beliefs only after working in the healthcare business from research, clinical and industry roles for almost thirty years. ...And after getting to know an awful lot of politicians very well.

The real solution is to get government out. If you don't do that, however, I suppose your notion of government healthcare will be better than what we're doing now. It's hard to imagine a system worse than our present scheme.

But understand that other countries around the world are breaking their banks over their socialized systems, and they're rapidly seeking out free market alternatives...even like "medical tourism," where people travel to get healthcare they can't get/afford at home.

And also understand that a lot of the innovations that have made socialized healthcare possible have come from outside the socialized system. Once there's nothing outside the socialized systems (like Canada, where their pharmaceutical companies can no longer do anything but make generics, and they have no pipeline of new drugs), and innovations slow to a crawl, well, perhaps we'll have a massive war that blows us into the stone age and we'l start all over again.

Andy,

There are no easy or quick fixes, it is a very complicated problem, and it will only get worse, public or private as the population ages and new (expensive) treatments become available to keep people alive who would have otherwise have perished.

Please do not accuse me of drinking the government Cool Aid. I want them out of many things, but there is NO way they will ever get out of healthcare.

This is one of many topics where intelligent, well informed and sincere people can disagree. As I said, I would like only a basic universal government plan; the private healthcare would still exist around and in addition to it, so people would be free to choose to go outside it, in which case it would then cover an equivalent amount of the cost to what it would cost if you stayed in their care.

All I know is the present system here is a mess, unless you work for the government or a company that provides generous benefits (less of them around every day). We have to find some way to provide coverage for the 47 million Americans without any basic healthcare. The health, well being and productivity of our society demands it.

Make no mistake Andy, some form of "socialized medicine" is in our future. I just want it to keep the best of what we have now. With our mantra of "rugged individualism" we would never end up with a system modeled after the UK or Canada, our history and politics are too different.

In any case, there will never be a "perfect" plan of any kind.

Our country faces huge economic challenges in the years ahead due to our horrendous balance of trade deficits, (At current rates approaching 750 billion dollars a year, our standard of living is being "subsidized" at the rate of thousands of dollars a year per person) and this is my main concern, more important even than what happens with healthcare, because ultimately, no matter what healthcare system we have, it will be subservient to our overall economic strength.

Greg

Sorry, no offense intended. I should probably read my posts before I hit save...

But I've never been more convinced that halfway, incremental measures never, ever work. If you can give me an example of incremental improvement in human society (as opposed to incremental decay), then I'll fall in with everybody else.

I believe that evil, like gum disease, never sleeps; and that the only way to triumph over it is for the few good people to forcibly, diligently and all-at-once brush it away.

There are too few good folk in politics to give even an inch to the historically more typical guys...

So either it's a sudden, revolutionary fix, or it's failure. I'm aware of nothing in between when it comes to politics.

Andy,

No offense was taken.

I couldn't agree with you more.

And, if the current government involvement in healthcare hasn't been and still is incremental, then I don't know the meaning of the word.

Greg

Hi All -

I'd like to second the notion that this could be useful to alert whoever needs to know to a need for intevention somewhere. Used in a nightclub, a sports stadium, a public demonstration, or possibly even a school, a system like this might allow one or two people to monitor a large crowd so that appropriate calming measures could be taken *before* someone gets hurt or serious property damage occurs.

Of course, it would also be possible for ill-considered intervention to *cause* violence, when the system showed the people were ripe for it. Not to mention that displaying aggressive vocal patterns shouldn't be a crime in most instances.

Anna

Yes, and we can equip the people with "attention devices" that you could activate from a distance. There will be a gradation of ways to get their attention

They will wear these devices at all time, you never know when the Emperor will want their obedience or attendance.

We will name them after an innocuous fruit....Blackberry

LOL.

Being a citizen of one of the afore-mentioned "western democracies", rather than a subject, I have no worries that any Emperor will require attendance or obedience of *me*.

Of course, I may very well be the last remaining holdout against cellphones among all the techies (and even the other mommies) of my acquaintance.

Anna

Anna, I shall pray that your bliss is well-founded, and that my suspicions are all wrong.

But history favors my view of politicians...of whom I've met more than a few.

You may trust the George Bush/Ted Kennedy types, but having spent over a decade in politics (writing columns, radio shows, working for a think tank and running for office myself) I am completely disabused of any notions that our best and brightest are politicians.

Good folk generally stay out of politics. Bad folks, it seems, never do.

Andy, you mistake my meaning.

I never said that I trusted polititions. Indeed, I said inept handling of an intevention into a "fraught with aggression" situation could trigger violence, rather than prevent it. I said that, being a citizen, there was no Emperor who had a claim on my obedience. There *is* a republic that has a claim on my active participation, and part of that partcipations is to do my best to get rid of the bad-apple polititions as soon as practical after detecting them.

Anna

I apologize. As long as you're trying to get rid of bad apples, you're a friend of mine. Sadly, with a 98% re-election rate of pretty objectively provably bad apples, I don't have enough friends!

It is almost bad enough that the saying "Politicians should serve two terms; one in office, one in prison." should be seriously considered as policy. Perhaps if there was a way for the few who *are* worthwhile to demonstrate their worth and thus escape the prison term to serve a second term in office.

Anna

Where'd "Politicians should serve two terms; one in office, one in prison" come from? I must know!

Excellent...

Anyway, I'm serious about developing such technology (that doesn't involve expensive MRI testing) to use on politicians. If anybody out there has the expertise necessary to get this rolling, I'll write the grant applications and provide lots of entertaining (and politically powerful) test subjects...

Andy-

You asked: "Where'd "Politicians should serve two terms; one in office, one in prison" come from? I must know!"

I first found it on a bumper sticker from Pegasus Press, which is now discontinued. But a number of my science fiction fan / libertarian friends have picked it up (including one who's an elected official in the adjoining county) and use it as a sig line for e-mails' etc.

BTW, another bumper sticker from Pegasus reads "186,000 miles/second. It's not just a good idea, it's the law".

Anna

One of my old campaign slogans was "Liberty - It's not just a good idea, it's the law." My campaign platform was initially just the U.S. Constitution. But since nobody's taken the half-hour necessary to read that old contract, I had to come up with something more populist/complicated.

...Sigh.

Anna - you quoted:
"Politicians should serve two terms; one in office, one in prison"

My favorite political slogan is from Doug Adams:
"Anyone capable of being elected must not be allowed to serve"

The more elections I see, the more I like that idea.

In all of human history, who's the been the bigger problem - angry drunks or politicians? Hitler, Stalin, Mao...the number of tyrants in just a single generation who caused the death of hundreds of millions makes me think it wiser to install monitors to let drunks watch our politicians.

We need to think seriously and long when it comes to such technology.

Possibly a chance discovery that politicians are delicious boiled or friccasseed (expecially the fat one) would spur an export trade to the third world, and act to discourage recruitment?

Aurizon,

I believe it was Jonathon Swift who once advocated a similar solution to "The Irish Question" during the Potato Famine. But I think the Third World might have trouble coming up with enough fuel to cook the fat ones through.

Anna

As an ilk from Eire, I know well the oppression the English practiced over the ages. At least now some changes have happened and the troubles are behind us.

Now to get them off the North by gradual and inexorable increase in population now that there is peace

Not a problem, Anna. They're already half-cooked from the inside; what with all that hot air and sulfurous damnation going on in there.

Hi andyhorning. I have just read in my newspaper here in the UK that our illustrious politicians are thinking about mounting a type of X-Ray monitor to our lamposts so as to detect if anyone is carrying a gun or knife. This device detects anything under our clothes, but it is not strong enough to see through our bodies, so what the people monitoring it will see is a naked person, plus of course any weapon they may be carrying. I have two problems with this; first, what about my privacy, my body is for me, my doctor and girlfriend to see only, without my permition everybody else can go and stuff themselves! Second, Tony Blair in colusion with George W. Bush have caused the death of more people than all the murderes in the UK have over the last 100 years, in fact the figure is a factor of 50. So, I agree with you, lets start monitoring our politicians before making criminals of everyone else.

You know that you and I are the minority opinion in this, right? Most people have the inverted position that "If I'm doing nothing wrong I have nothing to fear from government," when they should actually think "It is dangerous to be right when government is wrong."

What can we do? I'm certainly open to suggestions!

fear not this millimeter radar. It cannot resolve any features, it just reflects back from the water layer of the body and does not even resolve the ears or any other fine features. Sure it sees through clothes, but all you see is featureless shape that cannot be told apart from another person of the same weight and height. Hair cannot be seen at all. It will show carried metals and other massy objects above the skin, but nothing inside.

In addition. only women will screen women and men screen men.

Oh heck, then they're just not trying. Once they start doing what we do with medical ultrasound (using harmonics and complex-coded wave fronts), or what the fancy boys do with military imaging, then they'll be able to read tattoos before long. Just wait.

Hi aurizon, Only men looking at men and women looking at women, don't make me laugh! What if a crowd of people is under survailance, what then? It is not the device itself that I am afraid of, what I am afraid of is that this is another nail in the coffin of our rights and freedoms. My grandfather and my father fought a war between 1939 and 1945 against the nazi's of Germany who were doing the same as we are doing to our citizens now. We don't want it, and we don't need it.

Who will watch the watchers, as they say.

I would tolerate this if it prevented extremists with body packs of explosives from gaining entry to the protected space. A reasonable tradeoff, with some inspection of the inspectors I suppose

Hi aurizon. Here in the UK the last terrorists had found a way of making safe liquid high explosives with detonators disguised in mobile phones and pocket radio's. So this system will definately not deter terrorists. When this method was dicovered bythe police, it caused major disruptions in every airport around the world this past summer.

yes, the inspection will get the kiquids and any hidden packages will get found by the xray

Ok, how many of these devices will there be? 1000? 2000? More? Who is going to monitor each and everyone at all times, and spot anything dodgy? I can think of several items that would look illegal with an x ray type machine but be perfectly legitimate, so where are the crowds of police going to be to search everyone with a suspect shadow? So what we have are a load of potential radiation emitting machines dotted about the country, costing immense amounts of resources and achieving bugger all, all in the name of anti terrorism, a problem that has been increased ten fold by 'It's not my fault' Blair and G.W. Shrub…sorry, Bush. Yu know it makes sense!

You can hear the conversation now, 'So you arrested the man what did it, then, constable?'

'No Sir, I arrested the man what looked like he was about to do it, Sir.'

'And you can prove this, constable?'

'Oh yes sir, the CCTV captured the look on his face!'

'Well done constable! By the way, what's the charge?'

'There isn't one sir, he aint done anything.'

Policing of the future.

Could you be the next Charles Dickens? We need another "Bleak House."

The title leads one to believe in successful applications which evidently have not occurred. Another small postmodern disregard for reality?