Brad Ideas - Anti-atrocity system with airdropped video cameras - Comments

Great idea. Similar to "The Spiders" by Patrick Farley

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:30:07 -0700

This idea is similar to an idea put forward in webcomic "The Spiders" by Patrick Farley. Sadly now only viewable on the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070602151344/http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders...

In this case, the spiders are small, web controlled, web cameras with legs. They are the thread throughout the story. Because they are web controlled, anyone can queue up to control one, and anyone can view whatever is being seen by any spider. Reading between the lines, they are purchased by individuals to be distributed to war zones (Afghanistan, in this case). They are used not only to provide documentation, but also aid in certain circumstances.

If you want another view of this fantastic idea, it's a quick little read, although only the first 15 or 20 pages of his project were completed.

It's difficult

brad — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:25:32 -0700

The leaders may not be stopped, for they are already not anonymous, and for the likes of Slobodan there was trial, and documentation of what went on played a large role in the trial. But they can’t do it alone. Thousands of Hutus took up machetes and slaughtered. Would they have acted the same if they feared they were on camera? Perhaps, but also perhaps not, and just about any reduction is worth a modest cost like this. Many acts would stop being statistics and have actual faces associated with them.

And yes, it would also be seen more by the world. We always ask ourselves, “why didn’t we stop it?” We do try to hide it from our minds when it is happening. The U.S. was the big not-step-up in Rwanda, afraid of repeating Somalia, in that it blocked the security council, but the whole world didn’t step up. Most nations of the world could have fielded a force able to scare the ordinary Rwandans — or at least so we are told by some analysts of that situation.

It may be that just a bit more is needed. It may not be. But if people think they can be held personally responsible, if they realize that in the modern digital age their legacy will be video of them committing atrocity — perhaps they will have an extra thought.

technocrat solution

Frank Ch. Eigler — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:24:10 -0700

The end result would be more documentation of atrocities, and more fear that atrocities are being documented. This might have been enough to stop actions in Bosnia, Rwanda or Darfur.

Are you of the impression that it was a lack of documentation that mainly determined the tepid response to these events? As opposed to (say) general UN toothlessness, or lack of interest amongst those powers that had policing energy to spare?

For a fraction of the cost (and risk) of military action.

In order to stop atrocities in progress, military action would still be necessary.

And what kind of plausible / precedented punishment is supposed to deter the maniacs?

Anti-atrocity system with airdropped video cameras

brad — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:49:10 -0700

Our world has not rid itself of atrocity and genocide. What can modern high-tech do to help? In Bosnia, we used bombs. In Rwanda, we did next to nothing. In Darfur, very little. Here’s a proposal that seems expensive at first, but is in fact vastly cheaper than the military solutions people have either tried or been afraid to try. It’s the sunlight principle.

First, we would mass-produce a special video recording “phone” using the standard parts and tools of the cell phone industry. It would be small, light, and rechargeable from a car lighter plug, or possibly more slowly through a small solar cell on the back. It would cost a few hundred dollars to make, so that relief forces could airdrop tens or even hundreds of thousands of them over an area where atrocity is taking place. (If they are $400/pop, even 100,000 of them is 40 million dollars, a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of military operations.) They could also be smuggled in by relief workers on a smaller scale, or launched over borders in a pinch. Enough of them so that there are so many that anybody performing an atrocity will have to worry that there is a good chance that somebody hiding in bushes or in a house is recording it, and recording their face. This fear alone would reduce what took place.

Once the devices had recorded a video, they would need to upload it. It seems likely that in these situations the domestic cell system would not be available, or would be shut down to stop video uploads. However, that might not be true, and a version that uses existing cell systems might make sense, and be cheaper because the hardware is off the shelf. It is more likely that some other independent system would be used, based on the same technology but with slightly different protocols.

The anti-atrocity team would send aircraft over the area. These might be manned aircraft (presuming air superiority) or they might be very light, autonomous UAVs of the sort that already are getting cheap in price. These UAVs can be small, and not that high-powered, because they don’t need to do that much transmitting — just a beacon and a few commands and ACKs. The cameras on the ground will do the transmitting. In fact, the UAVs could quite possibly be balloons, again within the budget of aid organizations, not just nations.