The Plan To Use Fitbit Data To Stop Mass Shootings Is One of the Scariest Proposals Yet (gizmodo.com) 244
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Last week, the Washington Post reported that the White House had been briefed on a plan to create an agency called HARPA, a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon's research and development arm DARPA. Among other initiatives, this new agency would reportedly collect volunteer data from a suite of smart devices, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echos, and Google Homes in order to identify "neurobehavioral signs" of "someone headed toward a violent explosive act." The project would then use artificial intelligence to create a "sensor suite" to flag mental changes that make violence more likely. According to the Post, the HARPA proposal was discussed with senior White House officials as early as June 2017, but has "gained momentum" after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The latest version of the plan, reportedly submitted to the Trump administration this month, outlined the biometric project called "SAFE HOME," an acronym for "Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes." A source told the newspaper that every time HARPA has been discussed in the White House "even up to the presidential level, it's been very well-received."
A copy of the plan obtained by the Post characterizes HARPA as pursuing "breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence" and claims that "a multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis." That's a lot of vague buzzwords, but the general idea is clear: collect a wealth of personal data in order to flag mental status changes in individuals and determine whether those changes can predict mass violence. It's an approach that strikes George David Annas, deputy director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program at SUNY Upstate Medical University, as ridiculous. "The proposed data collection goes beyond absurdity when they mention the desire to collect FitBit data," Annas told Gizmodo. "I am unaware of any study linking walking too much and committing mass murder. As for the other technologies, what are these people expecting? 'Alexa, tell me the best way to kill a lot of people really quickly'? Really?" "Creating a watchlist of citizens who most likely will never act violently based on their mental health is a very dangerous proposal with major ethical considerations," Emma Fridel, a doctoral candidate at Northeastern University specializing in mass murder, told Gizmodo. "Doing so to predict the unpredictable is utterly absurd."
A copy of the plan obtained by the Post characterizes HARPA as pursuing "breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence" and claims that "a multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis." That's a lot of vague buzzwords, but the general idea is clear: collect a wealth of personal data in order to flag mental status changes in individuals and determine whether those changes can predict mass violence. It's an approach that strikes George David Annas, deputy director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program at SUNY Upstate Medical University, as ridiculous. "The proposed data collection goes beyond absurdity when they mention the desire to collect FitBit data," Annas told Gizmodo. "I am unaware of any study linking walking too much and committing mass murder. As for the other technologies, what are these people expecting? 'Alexa, tell me the best way to kill a lot of people really quickly'? Really?" "Creating a watchlist of citizens who most likely will never act violently based on their mental health is a very dangerous proposal with major ethical considerations," Emma Fridel, a doctoral candidate at Northeastern University specializing in mass murder, told Gizmodo. "Doing so to predict the unpredictable is utterly absurd."
Collect the data now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Activity monitor as anti suicide watch? (Score:2)
This is not a new thing. The technique has been used as far back as ancient China.
Modern China is Huawei... Actually, I was thinking about activity monitors as anti-suicide watches. Technology is morally neutral, but where could this go wrong?
THX1138 drug evasion (Score:4, Informative)
Anyone old enough to have seen THX 1138. You may recall they monitored everyones pulse to see if they were on task and not emotional or fearful. ANd you could be arrested for drug evasion if you didn't take your endocrine supression drugs and had emotional thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to collect enough data on everyone, such that if anyone becomes an issue in the future, they've got something to use against them, politically, economically, or criminally.
It's much simpler than that.
They want dirt on each other to use in election campaigns but they don't give a damn whether or not the general public is shooting each other or taking drugs, just so long as they pay their taxes.
What they really want this for is so that they can monitor the reactions to presidential speeches, tweets, etc., in real time.
Anybody with access to this information is pretty much guaranteed to win elections, and that means unlimited free money for them to spend.
Trouble is, usually only
Re:Collect the data now (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but relying on an ADL report is fucking inane. The ADL are horrifically biased and lack any semblance of objectivity.
You're also misquoting even their insane idiocy. They used the term "linked to the far right" (which, incidentally, you are, as you've read things that far right people have said) which is in itself very fucking different to 'by the far right'.
So get off your high fucking horse, stop trying to make this a divisive political issue and accept that cunts of all political views can act stupidly.
Re: (Score:3)
Literally 100% of the extremist murders in the United States in 2018 were by the far right.
That explains all of the homicides in democrat controlled urban areas.
Re: (Score:3)
What, you berating men because they don't have sex? I'm not sure, it seems pretty fucked up to me.
No, berating YOU, because your an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't include the fact that a large number of the currently-civilian population has had military training. The Army may be fairly small NOW, but it USED to be quite large - and a significant number of those would be actively hostile to this proposal.
The largest body of armed men in the field, in the WORLD, is Pennsylvania on the first day of hunting season.
Magic AI... (Score:2)
Don't have a spy device? What are you hiding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Among other initiatives, this new agency would reportedly collect volunteer data from a suite of smart devices, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echos, and Google Homes ...
Then anyone *not* owning one of these spy devices will become suspect ...
Annas told Gizmodo. "I am unaware of any study linking walking too much and committing mass murder."
Running on the other hand ...
"As for the other technologies, what are these people expecting? 'Alexa, tell me the best way to kill a lot of people really quickly'? Really?"
True, this seems more like a question for Siri.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what about google assistant, you insensitive clod!
I just assumed that as (basically) a Google employee, it would just complain about being asked to do something it was being paid to do. :-)
Re: Don't have a spy device? What are you hiding? (Score:2)
Re:Don't have a spy device? What are you hiding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then anyone *not* owning one of these spy devices will become suspect ...
Oh, I'm guessing that these will soon become mandatory in a few years. You will required to wear such a thing, just like in some countries your are required to carry a national identity card with you.
Or even easier, just put it as a required app on every one's cell phone.
can /. not just republished every article gizmodo (Score:2)
Just asking.
People will get all up in arms.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeppers. To date, there have been 246 people killed in "mass shootings" this year. Based on last year, we can expect rather more deaths in traffic this long weekend that just started.
Interestingly enough, by the way, back in March, we had 13 "mass shootings" that didn't kill a single person....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you're getting your statistics but it doesn't sound like a credible source. According to the FBI definition at least 4 people other than the shooter have to be killed in order for it to be considered a mass shooting. Gun control activist sources like to make up their own definitions to inflate the statistics.
All riights have limits. (Score:3, Insightful)
People will get all up in arms about shit like this, but they don't give a fuck about them stomping all over the second amendment.
All rights have limits, including the second amendment. Unfortunately, handful of gun fanatics (like yourself) have prevented the implementation of very common sense gun legislation and the repeal of what can only be described as I-can't-beleve-we-need-a-law-for-that legislation. Seriously, a known paranoid schizophrenic is free to purchase a high power rifle because apparently preventing unstable individuals is too much for you cranks.
People are dying because of fools with irrational fear and gun dealers
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
People are dying for all sorts of reasons. My right to be left the fuck alone outweighs your right to prevent a few deaths (and it is a few, very few, in the scheme of things). This is why I agree banning e.g. nuclear weapons and chemical weapons from civilians is fine - they are a legitimate risk to a civil society. Small arms are not. People will indeed die, shit I may die. But people will also die from alcohol, pain killers, and eating themselves to death.
As for "common sense" gun reforms, it's a joke. T
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a pri
Re:All riights have limits. (Score:4, Insightful)
All rights have limits, including the second amendment.
Pretty sure that the keeping and bearing of arms is quite clear in the Bill of Rights. Keeping and bearing kills no one. The wielding of them on the other hand can and should have limits. And it does have limits.
Unfortunately, handful of gun fanatics (like yourself) have prevented the implementation of very common sense gun legislation and the repeal of what can only be described as I-can't-beleve-we-need-a-law-for-that legislation. Seriously, a known paranoid schizophrenic is free to purchase a high power rifle because apparently preventing unstable individuals is too much for you cranks.
A person known to the justice system to have mental illness cannot legally purchase or possess a "high power rifle" (or even a low power one). I have no problem with that, neither does the National Rifle Association or Second Amendment Foundation, and no one is calling for that to be repealed.
You have just demonstrated that you have not ever purchased a firearm since everyone that does so from a licensed dealer will have their name checked by the FBI. If someone fails to put someone on this list when they should then that is not a fault of the law, it's the fault of the existing laws not being enforced.
We don't even have to get into the debate on the Second Amendment here, there's enough problems on unwarranted searches to kill any idea like this idea of spying on people with a Fitbit or Amazon Echo.
I just read about a new law in Texas that allows for people to go lawfully armed in churches and schools. It seems like "common sense gun laws" are getting passed. People gathered in a place of worship were left unarmed and open to mass murder by law, where's the "common sense" in that? People intent on murdering others at a mass gathering don't give a fuck about laws against carrying a weapon into a building, they decided to break all the laws already. What will stop these madmen are sane and law abiding people armed to defend themselves.
That includes sane and law abiding people armed with "high power rifles".
Just using the words "high powered rifles" tells me you know nothing about firearms. Go read a book or something.
Re:All riights have limits. (Score:4)
The terms "high powered rifle", "common sense", "unstable individual" and others are just buzzwords. They don't mean anything. Actually knowing what any of this stuff means is counterproductive to maintaining the fantasy. The fantasy is used to convince unsophisticated people into voting based on emotion and a false promise of some vague action that magically makes the bad feelings go away.
The news media does their part by conducting a sort of therapy-in-reverse, where otherwise sane and thoughtful people are exposed to a grossly exaggerated caricature of the whatever bad stories they can find (that fit their specific agenda). They generate the bad feelings. The politicians promise to make the bad feelings go away in exchange for votes.
But the politicians never actually deliver anything. That would ruin the fantasy. And if the bad feelings went away, unsophisticated voters might forget why they need the politicians.
So you can expect to hear the same buzzwords year-after-year, decade-after-decade.
Re: (Score:2)
The terms "high powered rifle", "common sense", "unstable individual" and others are just buzzwords.
Gun threads are notorious for bringing out the stupidest of claims. And congratulations, you win. No they are not "just buzzwords". That's an astonishingly facile claim. Just becuase you cannot 100% define it absolutely in every case does not make it "a buzzword".
Don't worry, the NRA is far too interested in selling guns to let anyone come for your guns any time soon, so you can switch your brain back on now
Re: (Score:2)
The way they're used in these discussions they are definitely buzzwords. I don't know the last time a high powered rifle was used in a mass shooting. The AR-15 is considered an intermediate powered rifle. So if people cared about the real definition of that term they wouldn't be throwing it around after mass shootings. "common sense" is just a way to preemptively shut down criticism when you're proposing another stupid law.
Re:Militia (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely it is. As long as you're in a well-regulated militia.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
SCOTUS ruled that the government cannot deny people access to firearms within their own domicile. This court case is still making waves across the nation, even a decade later, as laws against keeping firearms in the home evaporate.
You can make that argument that the Bill of Rights only protects those in the militia to keep and bear arms but that doesn't make it a good argument. There's about a dozen states that believe the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home as well.
https://opencarry.org/maps/con... [opencarry.org]
This is protected in many more states on the condition that the weapon is not concealed.
https://opencarry.org/maps/map... [opencarry.org]
Let me ask you something, do you know how the militia is defined in law? You can correct me if I'm wrong but the militia includes anyone fit for conscription into the military. This means just about any adult between the ages of 18 and 40 years of age. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, handful of gun fanatics (like yourself) have prevented the implementation of very common sense gun legislation
That would be the US constitution. Are you proposing an Amendment to it? Or are you proposing some sort of workaround to evade it?
a known paranoid schizophrenic is free
Lots of people in free countries are free to do lots of things. Do you have a specific proposal to designate some individuals as not as free as others? Let's hear the details.
to purchase a high power rifle
What is the difference between a "high power rifle" and a regular rifle? High power rifles are black and regular rifles are brown? Or something else?
unstable individuals is too much
Who decides who is unstable? The police? The pres
Re: (Score:2)
to purchase a high power rifle
What is the difference between a "high power rifle" and a regular rifle? High power rifles are black and regular rifles are brown? Or something else?
So I've always thought that some combination of 3 factors should be weighed for civilian gun limitations: 1) Rate of fire 2) caliber of round and 3) max accurate distance of fire. What you want to limit is firearms with high amounts of all 3. So a bolt action hunting rifle, say an 1906 is fine because of its low rate of fire. A large caliber handgun is fine because of its low accurate distance of fire. A bb machine gun is fine because of its tiny caliber. An AR-15 is not because it scores high on all 3
Re: (Score:2)
to purchase a high power rifle
What is the difference between a "high power rifle" and a regular rifle? High power rifles are black and regular rifles are brown? Or something else?
So I've always thought that some combination of 3 factors should be weighed for civilian gun limitations: 1) Rate of fire 2) caliber of round and 3) max accurate distance of fire. What you want to limit is firearms with high amounts of all 3. So a bolt action hunting rifle, say an 1906 is fine because of its low rate of fire. A large caliber handgun is fine because of its low accurate distance of fire. A bb machine gun is fine because of its tiny caliber. An AR-15 is not because it scores high on all 3 factors. Why is this so complicated? Anybody with even a tiny amount of firearms experience could come up with this. Don't be dense, if you support the 2nd amendment so much, you would have to understand these concepts pretty well I hope.
What does "scores high" mean? How do you define "accurate distance of fire"? You understand that laws are written using precise language, right?
Also, an AR-15 is a low caliber rifle, so you got that part wrong already.
Re: (Score:2)
What does "scores high" mean? How do you define "accurate distance of fire"? You understand that laws are written using precise language, right?
Also, an AR-15 is a low caliber rifle, so you got that part wrong already.
So a single slashdot comment should be written to the standard of a legal document? OK, as you pointed out you need to create categories and those are malleable so they could include the 5.56 AR-15 round. You're aware of course that the AR-15 can have rounds with almost twice the caliber [gunmagwarehouse.com] of that round (up to 12.7). But there is also the amount of powder in the round to consider as well. Perhaps you are right and muzzle velocity should be used instead of caliber. Either way you could easily come up wit
Re: (Score:2)
Either way you could easily come up with a reasonable set of standards here if you wished.
Problems with such standards:
- they are arbitrary and you end up arresting and imprisoning someone for being slightly on the bad side of the completely arbitrary line you have drawn, while letting another man free for being slightly on the good side. It's unjust. (Some won't care about that because many of those people imprisoned unjustly will have a different skin color or a different lifestyle.)
- none of the restrictions have any effect on the number or body count of shootings, so you have imprisoned th
Re: (Score:2)
1) Rate of fire on a semi-automatic is essentially always the same. It's the rate you can pull the trigger. .223, which is a small and not particularly powerful round.
2) This seems to be chasing an arbitrary characteristic. Most mass shootings are done with 5.56 or
3) So the gun is sold with the barrel a little loose and the buyer tightens it up when they get home, or something to that effect. And most mass shootings happen at distances close enough that this doesn't matter so you aren't really solving an
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights isn't followed currently in case you haven't noticed. In the case of the 2nd, there are all kinds of people that have their right to bear arms infringed.
Why amendment the Constitution when the courts and citizens ignore it anyways? Just up the page there are pro-gun people that are fine with certain people not being able to bear arms while claiming that the Bill of Rights is so important to follow.
Re: (Score:3)
The Bill of Rights isn't followed currently in case you haven't noticed. In the case of the 2nd, there are all kinds of people that have their right to bear arms infringed.
Why amendment the Constitution when the courts and citizens ignore it anyways? Just up the page there are pro-gun people that are fine with certain people not being able to bear arms while claiming that the Bill of Rights is so important to follow.
If the argument is that no one has to obey anything, that sounds like exactly the situation where owning a lot of weapons would be prudent.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better is to live somewhere where the law is followed
Re: (Score:3)
All rights have limits, including the second amendment.
Proclaiming that "all rights have limits" is a totally pointless argument to make. So what? Unless you're going to actually discuss the current limits and how they apply, you're making a non-sequitur. While this [theatlantic.com] discusses stupid arguments regarding the 1A, it is equally applicable to the 2A.
Re: (Score:2)
For years I've made posts talking about the way the 2nd Amendment was treated would lead to the amendments the left doesn't hate being eroded much more as well. This is exac
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no.
It should also be noted, by the by, that the "assault weapons" people like to wet themselves over are NOT "high power rifles". My Ruger Number 1 is a high powered rifle (well, reasonably so - it's a .30-06), but it's a falling block rifle (basically a Civil War Sharps rifle using a modern cartridge). My Mini-14 is NOT "high powered" (too weak to be legal to hunt deer). Of course, it's NOT an "assault weapon" either
Re: (Score:3)
This is the most absurd take I read from you people. That the second fucking amendment gives the _military_ (or state militias) the right to bear arms. How fucking absurd can you possibly be? They added an amendment explicitly stating "the people" so that.. the military could arm itself. I guess they were worried we wouldn't know that our military could actually be armed instead of prancing around in splendor and defeating our enemies with sheer buggery and lechery.
It's a joke and you all repeat it to each
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they were worried we wouldn't know that our military could actually be armed instead of prancing around in splendor and defeating our enemies with sheer buggery
In fairness that worked pretty well for the British Navy.
Re: (Score:3)
As far as sophistry good, that's not even good sophistry. It's not even clear if you believe it yourself or if the sheer risible silliness of it is lost on you.
I for one am glad they didn't shift the second amendment down in favor of another amendment guaranteeing the people (but not any actual person) the right to breathe air regardless of the ownership of the property one might be on.
Re:People will get all up in arms.. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree that people can be overly hysterical about the likelihood of being the victim of a mass shooting, I think you're being just as willfully blind to statistics as they are. You can look at the trends [wikipedia.org] and see that mass shootings have become more common and have always been more common in the United States. People should absolutely be more concerned about traffic safety and their personal heath but that doesn't mean they shouldn't seek some sort of change to reverse this disturbing trend of mass shootings.
Furthermore, mass shootings are indicative of a more disturbing aspect of our culture. I think it's safe to assume that there are many who would like to engage in that type of violent behavior but lack the courage to do so (like all of the 8chan creeps). Ignoring mass shootings just because you are unlikely to be the victim to one is a silly, ego-centric way of considering political and social issues.
Finally, mass biometric data collection is much more horrifying than something like an assault weapons ban. There will always be some type of "arms" that are illegal. I'm a gun owner and I see no reason to freak out if the laws are slightly more restrictive. The original assault weapon ban didn't cause any harm (and might have caused a quite a bit of good), so I don't see why you're so afraid of bringing it back. If you give that much of a shit about assault rifles, make your own. The technology is basic and you can easily get the tools and materials to make them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always confused when supposed gun owners support "assault weapon" bans. Do you really think banning guns because they have pistol grips or adjustable stocks is going to save any lives? Because that's the kind of nonsense that defines "assault weapons". And no, when they are banned they become illegal for you to make as well.
I think there are larger social issues leading to more mass shootings and people would rather focus on guns than deal with tough problems.
Stomping all over the second amendment (Score:2)
hasn't ever happened, but it's long past due.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's no coincidence that authoritarian control freak types run Silicon Valley vertical monopolies.
Already they skew reality for the sake of "fairness", act as gatekeepers for public dialog, and leverage their size and resources to make sure any candidates we have to vote for are the correct ones.
As for "innocent until proven guilty", well, sounds like someone needs to check their privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
What precisely do you mean by that?
Re: (Score:2)
So are airplane crashes. But they seem like chilling ways to die. A mass shooting is like being a guest of honor in a human abbatoir. And remember these "statistical blips" are hundreds to thousands of people a year, above and beyond the other deaths which are occurring.
If we had a couple-three 747s or A380s crashing every year, the equivalent of our mass-shooting bodycount, they too would be "statistical blips" but people would still be interested in stopping them
Re: (Score:3)
There are an estimated 500,000 or more cases per year of defensive gun uses according to the last CDC study on the issue. There is also the practical application of hunting, which keeps certain animal populations from creating problems. There are definitely benefits to owning them. What we are seeing is people who have no interest in owning them demanding they be taken away from other people.
Re: (Score:2)
Worldwide, the top 10 causes of death vary by source, but it's roughly this:
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
Let's say, just in the USA
> 2nd leading cause of death
You need to define what "children" means to make this claim. The data of https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wis...
https://pediatrics.aappublicat... [aappublications.org]
Notably, age 12 the homicide rate is 3x the rate of death by gun injury.
This isn't a strictly critical attack on the sentiment.
Gun violence is an big issue and it's VERY important to make your arguments as
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Children and adolescents. You know who's dying in inner city violence? Adolescents. I agree something needs to be done about inner city violence but pretending "OMG the children" because of gang deaths is disingenuous.
You're not tricky. 73 actual kids (12 or under) died from firearms accidents in 2018. 73. It's a real epidemic, huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Then there is a long list of other things they should also find "worth it". For example, states that legalize marijuana see an increase in car accidents. Including fatal car accidents. So banning recreational marijuana saves lives. How many people who want to ban guns favor legalizing marijuana?
There is a clear implication here (Score:2)
People who wear a smart watch or similar are a mass shooter and/or an all around psycho just waiting to cut loose
Something must be done. (Score:2)
This is something.
Ergo?
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking of a quote from a British political comedy show. There's a scene in which a very experienced politician, wise in the ways of public relations, explains to a newcomer the importance of being seen to take action when the public perceives there is a crisis - even if the action is quite pointless, it is better to be fail than to be perceived as not caring.
The full quote is "Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done."
all the hallmarks of fascist ideology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
outlaw... political fraud.
Let's throw in world peace while we're at it.
Re:all the hallmarks of fascist ideology (Score:5, Insightful)
limit the availability of firearms
To only the government and special citizens that the current government favors.
and to outlaw incitements to hatred and political fraud.
In other words, to arrest anyone who says something that threatens the current government interests.
A fascist response
Is exactly what you are proposing.
...already targeted and oppressed by hard-right violence and hatred.
Oh? Are you saying that's the bad kind of violence and hatred? Does that mean the other team's violence and hatred is the good kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. Latin. So what?
Re:all the hallmarks of fascist ideology (Score:4, Informative)
Oh? Are you saying that's the bad kind of violence and hatred? Does that mean the other team's violence and hatred is the good kind?
Frankly yes, given I'm not a moral relativist.
The far right hate black people, brown people, light brown people, Mexicans, Jews, gay people transsexuals, anyone vaguely not conforming, women who don't just spew babies, men they consider "not manly enough". And the far right often advocate violence or death.
Sane people: hate the far right.
So yes, these two things are not equivalent simply because they share a few words in common. You appear to be under the impression that Nazis hating me and wanting to kill me, my family and many of my friends entirely equivalent to me hating the Nazis.
Putting it childishly in terms of "teams" does not magically make your point somehow good.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
As an outside observer, the GP comes off as reasonable but potentially a little naive, and you come off as a fucking lunatic.
Feel free to set the example for all of us by curtailing your commentary at this time.
You should head your own advice.
Call the CIA (Score:2)
They already know who the next shooter is.
Eh. (Score:2)
The first test subjects should be... (Score:2)
...people in the military.
These are highly trained individuals who have all kinds of stress going on when it comes to training. It would be interesting to see what their baselines are when at rest, on obstacle courses, target practice, and live fire training.
Release all this data to the public and let's see what outside, independent researches say about it before trying it out on the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
The first test subjects should be people in the military.
Do you know the criteria to get in the military? Just that alone is likely to spoil the data to the point of useless.
First is that a military recruit has to have an IQ above 85 (they test for this), perhaps higher given the needs for recruits at the time, and have graduated high school. The recruit must not show signs of bad behavior, which would be from a check of high school records and criminal records. There should be no history of drug abuse. Obviously a recruit needs to be physically fit, and main
“Minority Report”, anyone? (Score:2)
Oh, *data* (Score:2)
I thought the plan was mandatory FitBits for all with an additional taser device encased, to disable any citizen deemed a threat. Imagine my surprise when I read the summary through!
Oh yeah (Score:3, Funny)
This isn't a new proposal, not even this century (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be done by family and community.
It does seem many of the recent perps were isolated, and should have been recognized as 'at risk' of something. We've gone so far from real community, families have become so disconnected, and the mental health industry focused on pharmaceuticals rather than real evaluation and less chemically dependent treatment that we're here, where people that need help are being ignored.
An improved telescreen (Score:2)
This is even better than a telescreen!
The general idea is clear: (Score:2)
look like you are doing something, but do nothing to control guns.
A Luddite movement? (Score:4, Insightful)
With all the revelations about constant spying, I wonder how long it will be before a true Luddite counter-movement happens. Some people are already tossing their smartphones for featurephones. Smartwatches have not really caught on. People don't want vehicles with Wi-Fi hotspots if it means that they can be remotely disabled at any time and tracked 24/7. Farmers are taking ancient tractors and rebuilding them so they don't have to pay license fees for parts. With a recession coming up, and the honeymoon with electronic gewgaws almost over, people will be more interested in other stuff than buying the latest e-stuff.
We see this with phones, where it was common for people to upgrade every 12-24 months. Now, people keep their phone a lot longer, just because the new model release doesn't have that much more than the old one.
We are seeing a similar trend in business, where the wholesale run to cloud providers is slowing down, and on-prem is still something people want.
I wonder how long it will be until some form of payphone comes back, just so people can have communication, but are not chained to a tracking device 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the revelations about constant spying, I wonder how long it will be before a true Luddite counter-movement happens.
What makes you believe it hasn't already happened?
Seems to me that Apple and other corporations make it a selling point that they will not share data with the government. Think how long a lock maker would last if they gave keys to every lock they sold to the government?
Since this is about stopping people that kill others with firearms we have businesses that provide the tools for the law abiding to make their own firearms. People don't trust a government that keeps trying to build a database of who owns w
Good Idea ... (Score:2)
The government can use the Voter Registration list as the data source and have some name randomly chosen from the list each day. Then they can go out and kill that person claiming that they exhibited signs of being a future mass murderer. Absolutely no need for complicated Algorithmic Inference and there is no way to prove that the executions did not prevent mass murders from occurring because it is manifestly impossible for a dead person to commit mass murder after they are dead, thus the system is 100%
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud your ingenuity! It is pretty hard to create any detector with zero false positives, but building one where the false positives cannot be identified is the next best thing. No need even to be careful about going to the right address or making sure to shoot the right person.
Sounds like the Minority Report (Score:2)
"Volunteer data" (Score:4, Insightful)
The summary states it would be volunteer data, which of course it would have to be. Thing is, seems to be the "people who are volunteering to send their data to this new agency" aren't really likely to overlap much with the "people who are likely to go on a shooting rampage".
Re: (Score:2)
I think one only concern is if voluntary becomes opt-out, becomes hidden opt-out, that gets canceled after each update to the extent that most users don't really understand that they are being tracked.
Sophisticated users will be able to avoid being tracked, but the majority may not know that its happening.
Fuck them sideways with a rusty chainsaw (Score:2)
MEANWHILE: You want to make big headway into stopping the mass shootings? THE MEDIA NEEDS TO VOLUNTARILY STOP REPORTING ON (AND THEREFORE GLORIFYING) THE GODS-BE-DAMNED MASS SHOOTINGS! They're giving these violent assholes their 15 minutes of fame, and it just 'inspires' the other violent assholes, pushes them over the edge into committing more mass murder. JUST FUCKING STOP IT
Re: (Score:2)
No, don't stop reporting on shootings -- there are legitimate public safety concerns otherwise. But do stop mentioning the shooters' names, and definitely stop talking about their politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Best add a nerve-agent injector (Score:2)
And when somebody is found to head to that "violent explosive act" by the, no doubt, ultra-reliable AI, just terminate the subject immediately for the greater good. You do not even need police to shoot some citizen, it can all be automatized!
Yawn (Score:3)
A mental health initiative requires normed data (Score:2)
It's your choice: collect mental stability data on large populatons as part of a large-scale mental health initiative, or enjoy your weekly school shooting. Which shall it be?
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely, it'll be both. This isn't going to stop shootings, and that fact isn't going to stop it from happening.
Doubly scary 'cause shrinks are WORSE than chance (Score:2)
this new agency would ... collect ... data ... in order to identify "neurobehavioral signs" of "someone headed toward a violent explosive act."
What's doubly scary is that psychiatrists are somewhat WORSE than chance at predicting whether a particular person will commit violence, large-scale or otherwise.
So not only would this spying scheme result in denial of civil rights without due process, it would be expected to strip civil rights from more "good guys" than "bad guys".
Think of the children! (Score:2)
using that famous line the clueless so love to use - we should ban ANYTHING that could harm or kill a child. Not just guns you crazies. But knives, automobiles, small things they could potentially choke on, other people - yes BAN all humans - how many kill children? Ban any animal that could harm or kill a child. Ban food - they could choke and die on it. ban alcohol - consumption could cause an adult to injure or kill a child - like drunk driving - go back to banning automobiles. No exceptions period! You
I put my Fitbit ... (Score:3)
At first, they thought I was extremely nervous and hyperactive. But then they realized I wasn't a threat as I spent most of my time licking my balls.
Am I missing something here ? (Score:2)
Do Serial Killers and Mass Shooters start vibrating or something before they snap ?
Simpler solution (Score:2)
This proposed solution, even it would work, is expensive and complicated. A simpler solution would be to implement effective gun control laws, such as those that have worked in other countries.
Also, note that the Second Amendment was never meant to give an individual the right to own a gun. It was meant to allow people to use guns and other weapons while serving in a militia under the control of the government. At the time the Constitution was written, the term "bear arms" was a term of art that meant using
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to arming teachers? (Score:2)