Brooders

I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing: 1st text message based police tip line.

Update: Another article with a bit more detail VeriSign Enables First Text Message Based Police Tip Line in the U.S.

Mountain View-based VeriSign (NASDAQ:VRSN – News) said citizens only have to text the word “tip” to enter the system, and information will be channeled to the police department.

VeriSign said its system masks all personal identifiable information, such as mobile phone numbers, before sending the text message to the police department. Through the interface, the Boston Police Department can immediately exchange messages with the tipster to obtain information about the crime and the details necessary to respond rapidly, VeriSign said.

So what if a bad guy wants to create noise by sending heaps of requests to the the police station? Or perhaps even misleading information (sent from many mobile phones)?

I can just imagine it, a bad guy robs a store and SMS/texts the police saying he’s running in a different direction.

The article says they are “masks all personal identifiable information, such as mobile phone numbers, before sending the text message to the police department. “. Can they unmask it if needed?

I wonder what “signal to noise information ratio” they will get? Would this also create a greater amount of information to process, with worse response times than normal conversation.

I remember speaking to someone at a claims center, they said most of their tip offs for fraudulent claims were detected by the staff. It was a gut feeling that put that claim under greater scrutiny. Is that the same for police “tip” hotlines? Perhaps by removing this human element, and increasing lag of communication might not be good thing? Or is it trying to get the younger generation to help out in crime because they wouldn’t call a hotline.

It will be interesting to see if this works or we hear more of it, maybe it’ll just fade away. Who knows, it might work?

Transhumanism is an odd thing I don’t think many of my friends (or my wifes for that matter) would know about.

Everyones first point of reference (Wikipedia) has the following to say about Transhumansim:

Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of new sciences and technologies to enhance human mental and physical abilities and aptitudes, and ameliorate what it regards as undesirable and unnecessary aspects of the human condition, such as stupidity, suffering, disease, aging and involuntary death.

Dang .. that’s not particularly clear.

This article however, Transhumanism as simplified humanism, I think does a good job of explaining things:

If you believe professional bioethicists (people who get paid to explain ethical judgments) then the rule “Life is good, death is bad; health is good, sickness is bad” holds only until some critical age, and then flips polarity. Why should it flip? Why not just keep on with life-is-good? It would seem that it is good to save a six-year-old girl, but bad to extend the life and health of a 150-year-old. Then at what exact age does the term in the utility function go from positive to negative? Why?

As far as a transhumanist is concerned, if you see someone in danger of dying, you should save them; if you can improve someone’s health, you should. There, you’re done. No special cases. You don’t have to ask anyone’s age.

You also don’t ask whether the remedy will involve only “primitive” technologies (like a stretcher to lift the six-year-old off the railroad tracks); or technologies invented less than a hundred years ago (like penicillin) which nonetheless seem ordinary because they were around when you were a kid; or technologies that seem scary and sexy and futuristic (like gene therapy) because they were invented after you turned 18; or technologies that seem absurd and implausible and sacrilegious (like nanotech) because they haven’t been invented yet. Your ethical dilemma report form doesn’t have a line where you write down the invention year of the technology. Can you save lives? Yes? Okay, go ahead. There, you’re done.

So .. Transhumanism is about saving lives and increasing health and intellect in individuals using technology. That’s much easier than shrouding things in complicated terms. Pacemakers are good, so are joint replacements ( I discussed this kind of tech in Cybernetics – Merging Man and Machine earlier) .. we don’t think about that kind of enhancement now, but stem cells and custom grown organs is still a bit freaky and new for most people. I guess that the current problem with this technology .. it’s still too new.

The above article talks about morality .. if you can save or help someone, then why not do it? Who cares what technology you use to do it.

I don’t know much about politics in Australia, let alone internationally. Articles like these however just make me think I’m reading a sci-fi novel during the 1990s, about a cold war between governments in the future.

Estonia recovers from massive denial-of-service attack

China preps for cyberwarfare

INTERNET SYSTEMS DISRUPTION

RUSSIA VS. ESTONIA: 21st Century State vs. State Conflict

Cyberwar in the Baltic (From InfoCult).

Originally found this stuff via Cyberwar (By Bruce Schneier)

Seriously though, this is such a cyberpunk story .. just that now it’s real and not just in a book.