A US judge has ordered Hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan to wear an alcohol-monitoring bracelet.Whoa! Hold on right there. Say what?
[...] an alcohol-monitoring bracelet.I didn't even know there was such a thing.
The Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (Scram) bracelet works by sensing through the skin if a person has been drinking and sends the signal to a monitoring company.Now, is it just me, or could this piece of technology be a sinister threat to personal liberty if it should fall into the wrong hands ...
... like, ooh I dunno, the Department of Health, for example?
12 comments:
Looks ominous, doesn't it DP. Wonder if they are working on one that Cotinine? Great headline by the way.
OMG. Who invents this crap?
Can you not just slip a bit of paper between your skin and the monitor?
Or even better, get a foot spa, pour in a bottle of cheap, gut rot whiskey and soak your feet. Whoever is monitoring the thing will have a baby.
Are these nifty bits of tackle
solar or battery powered?
Would the jobs of monitors be
advertised in the Guardian, if so
how much £Pa ,could do with a nice little earner.
Nicotine Trace Monitor , next,
put your sheckels on it
Goth Enquiry Unit
Like DP, I had no idea such a thing was even possible. I wonder how long before it makes its appearance over here?
Playing Devil's Advocaat (boom boom) here, I can see a big upside to this. Why impose zero alcohol zones and minimum pricing and all that other shit? Cheaper and easier to slap a Lohan Bangle on the small minority who can't control their drinking and commit crimes when they're pissed, and everyone else gets their lives back to run themselves. The few problem drinkers get the option, as I imagine Lohan did, of the monitor or jail and will mostly choose the monitor. Less pressure on the penal system and more prison space for more serious criminals. In fact everybody wins.
Of course, all that presupposes a government keen to use the technology to support individual liberty instead of removing it and/or wiping its arse on. In itself the gadget is neutral - the potential for good or bad all depends on the attitudes of those using it. That might be a good reason to change governments, laws or constitutions, but when isn't that true anyway?
I've got a pair of beer goggles that I wear most weekends but I've never heard of this monitoring unit. How queer.
No, it is not just you, it is typical of the genre, like laws with arbitrary numbers in them - blood alcohol, speed limits etc.
Disgusting beyond measure.
The little control freaks fall asleep drooling over the thought that they might be able to monitor their 'clients' 24X7 rather than just at isolated places or times.
I'm sure that their workings would be 'Home Office Approved' and deemed accurate in law, just like some other devices...
Pouring Listerine and the like over the thing every 5 mins would seem to be the best solution.
I used to have something very similar to that gizmo and they're both annoying and expensive. Eventually I got rid of her by copping off with her best friend. Works a treat every time.
With Lardy Liam on the way out, will anyone in the DoH care any more?
There's cushy jobs to be saved now Dem Tories are able to see the books and understand just how bad things really are.
AE: And an excellent advocate for the Devil you make. It's true that it would be a beneficial solution all round ... which is why they won't think of it. ;-)
But you knew that anyway, didn't you, hence your second para.
John R: Never under-estimate the tenacity of these bastards. They've had 13 years of conditioning which tells them that hectoring and coercion is OK.
I'm certainly not relaxed with Andrew 'pharma non-exec' Lansley and David 'let's introduce smoking bans to Africa' Kerr at the DH helm.
Honest gov, i have no idea how that selotape got stuck under there.
Post a Comment