posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by WhiteAlice
My initial response was partially out of humor.
It does, however, highlight implementation in the social forum that could indeed result in quite the debate.
Terms like "dehumanizing" might be going a little bit too far as it applies to keeping anyone in public offices (supposedly representing their
constituents as opposed to their own self interests) honest.
What's the point of the swearing in oath of any of these offices, if not meant as a promise of fidelity to their constituents as opposed to their own
Politicians are suppose to be accountable to their constituency, well, at least in democratic nations.
It'd certainly be interesting were some politicians to kick off a social campaign in voluntarily and conspicuously wearing such a device as a
testament of fidelity to their constituents, where those politicians not wearing any such would then gain an association with dishonesty for their
refusal to follow suit in such voluntary action.
Of course, then, there would always be debate regarding the functional efficacy of such devices as well as questions of tampering, and even wireless
hacking to force a false positive.
Still, the device brings up some interesting questions regarding its potential future uses, not only in the traditional Orwellian sense, but, also in
edit on 11/9/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)