Damien forwards:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=001652968606417&rtmo=kNCxYCJp&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/00/8/31/nfor531.html
>
> MEG and Joe live in Brightlands, a secure estate protected by a siren which
> sounds whenever outsiders try to cross the barbed wire perimeter. They were
> lucky to pass the vetting procedure because Joe's tag, for a 10-year-old
> conviction, was removed only a few months ago.
> It is so unsafe to leave "walled" areas that they work from home, although
> their computers are linked into the company network so their bosses can
> tell exactly when they log on and off.
After considerable hunting, I found the actual report online at
http://www.foresight.gov.uk/servlet/DocViewer/doc=883/CrimeConsultation.pdf.
It's not as one-sided as the description above implies. There are
actually two scenarios explored at the end, one of a "socially exclusive"
world (the above), and one of a "socially inclusive" world. The latter
is much more positive, although the scenario does depict a robbery
(perhaps in order to show what lengths a robber must go to in 2020 -
it isn't successful).
Crime has actually been decreasing for the past ten years (although
in the UK there has been a slight uptick the past couple of years).
The commission foresees an increase in crime due to demographics,
and also to a supposed loss of social cohesiveness. Everybody finds
support on the net for their wild views, which encourages lawlessness -
that seems to be the picture.
The report raises a number of interesting points regarding crime.
What if nanotech allows on-site drug synthesis? How should society
handle the options for pervasive surveillance, and the technologies to
evade observation? What about other addictive technologies?
A couple of excerpts:
"3.29. The virtual world offers the potential for digital stimulation
as an alternative to chemical drugs. The potentially addictive nature of
the almost limitless uncensored information is cause for concern. The
ability to spend extended periods of time consuming visual material
(eg paedophilia) may prove to be addictive. In addition there may be
ways to stimulate the brain through electronic images/interaction to
produce effects currently limited to narcotics."
I don't think pedophilia is a good example here, because it's so
inflammatory and raises many other issues. But it is good to see them
facing the possibility that if drugs are bad because they are addictive,
maybe other addictive activities must be treated the same way.
"3.4 Developments in the sequencing of the human genome over the next
20 years will increase the information available from a DNA sample
found at the scene of a crime. At present such a sample can only be
matched to one already on the DNA database. In the future, however,
for those where no match is found, the use of gene markers may allow
identification of certain characteristics from a sample, better to
target police investigations. While the identification is likely to be
probabilistic rather than categorical, the characteristics which might
be identified include: age, sex, race, eye colour, hair colour, facial
characteristics, and stature traits. In other words, the investigator
may have a description of the suspect from DNA, without any other forms
of identification."
I hadn't thought of this application of DNA sequencing. Even without
a database or monitoring technology it may be possible to get a good
physical description of a suspect.
Generally the report is worth reading, contrary to the impression one
might get from that Telegraph article.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:54 MDT