And maybe they'll even find Osama bin Laden...

Oh no! They're coming to get me... Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!

ha ha, tres amusant!

When the engineer who built it, tells you to be afraid, be afraid!

Did the american public think it was funny when Gearge Bush became president owing to the fact that millions of voters were struck off the electoral roles for names that sounded like those of convicted criminals because the software specification was so lose.

Will it be funny when a family member is denied a job because if a false entry in a security file?

Will you enjoy being audited by the tax office because your stock broker or the sahre registry was sloppy in their record keeping because of their poorly specified computer software?

I remember a childhood Sunday evening, when a smiling Walt Disney told me how technological revolution would bring about a more equitable distribution of wealth and leisure. As I saw and heard it then, he described the next phase of human evolution - a future in which humanity, freed of the drudgery (slavery) of toil, would be free to contemplate the world, pursue pleasure, investigate and philosophise.

The fact that he used the character of Goofy to represent yer average citizen (me), was probably a warning that it wouldn't be so easy. How right he was.

Brilliant contribution......thank you...

ellgo

he's trying to scare me, but it's not so easy- we have oz politicians standing between us and evil. and they do our thinking for us, too. she'll be right, mate!

(any previous implied critism of politicians or parliamentary rule is now inoperative. i can now reveal i was acting as an agent provocateur for the nsa. free-lance. really guys, i'm on the side of truth, justice, and the american way. always have been.)

hmm, there's a black suburban parked out front. they're coming to the front door! what can i do for=

I am ROFLMAO at the people who are continually asserting that the GOV”T is engendering a climate of fear in order to have their evil way with us, yet will uncritically accept the fear mongering associated with any new technology.

Whilst I am sure the Author is a knowledgable man, he certainly did NOT build a nano-computer of any description. The author has a chair as a Science COMMUNICATOR. Not an inventor, but someone who explains science to others. What he is, in fact, is a journalist. So Billie, use that critical faculty that you’ve been given please.

This article is a BEAT UP of the most incredible nature. This is truly the stuff of pseudo-science and rightly belongs in a science fiction novel.

Technology is neither good nor bad; it is how we choose to use it that matters. This is rightly a debate about privacy policy. Something scientists have little experience in, and perhaps journalists even less.

As of now, no practical quantum computer of any significance has been produced. Most scientists believe we are still decades away from a practical quantum computer. The problem at the moment is scalability. They are not far beyond the demonstration of concept stage in fact, with no evidence that it can be scaled up to useful levels of storage and manipulation.

No doubt quantum computing would be a revolution in information technology. But the idea that we are suddenly going to accumulate massive amounts of data on every single person over their lifetimes is not even remotely a near-future issue

I'm sorry, but the author lost me when he claimed the government was keeping a secret database of every Australians genetic code.

That and his warblings about a technology that hasn't even seen the first realistic implementation.

And just to make sure that Paul.L is happy, I am one who will claim that the government has kept the fear level up for political gain. However luddite screamings do not help the issues.

From the article “I can only say that I remember writing my first newspaper article on greenhouse in 1976 or 77, based on a CSIRO report back then, when it was universally regarded as scaremongering.”

And for many, me included, it still is.

I must agree with James Purser, if the secret squirrels are going to reap the benefits of computerising us with nano devices, I only hope they use something better than Microsoft for the operating system.

In the meant time. Get ready for a silicone implant where we rub our forehead against a magnetic scanner to charge to our credit cards (there were some other suggestions for swiping things to read a number but what little decorum I have prevailed).

In the meantime, back to the real world of SQLs and ODBC and a client paying me heaps to perform what Cognos seems unable to achieve.

what's funny about these claims of governments needing secret files on it's citizenry is that the ones who consistently are alarmed have no secrets and will, given the chance yak on endlessly about themselves. Why would anyone want such drivel archived? It's not like they wouldn't tell you all over again if you ever had to really hear.
It's not the file keeping that ought to worry you guys. It's those little communicators everyone had to wear on Star trek that let everyone know where everyone else was at all times. Beam me up Scottie.

A No Wrong Door Policy is the mirror pressing to unlock Pandora’s nanobox, and the ills are peeping out, as well as some benefits.

At regional levels it's a call for Institutional Administrive Reform
toward a Poverty Reduction through Empowerment & Participation in Economic Good Governance.

This must wrangle with the potential impact of the nanocracy on human evolution.

Since civilisation began, and since before the dying forests millions of years ago, and no, we not pointing to Mars or elsewhere, we are pointing to the whole 'Science of Government', the apex of All our minds (see Charles Dickens) that has led us here now.

Earthings are all explorers of new ideas, adventurers, challengers of accepted wisdoms, reformers, liberals, researchers, creators and innovators.

We are ALL at a cross road.

We know it is no good waiting until the technology arrives, entrains and enchains us. It is arriving continuously.

"Which government, which official, which employer can resist the temptations of such power?

As Juvenal, perhaps thinking of the praetorians, remarked “Quis custodet ipsos custodes?”,

"Who guards those selfsame guards"?

Just as Cribbs notes the "overuse or misuse of previous technologies" and the reference to 'safeguards that must be put in place, now, regarding the use of personal data, the reasons it may be aggregated, where it may be aggregated and from and who is allowed access to it.

And this must be 'totally transparent'.

We must balance the ALL sake of our ancient human freedoms and our right to a creative and progressive future.

We must have a clear opportunity to act in advance of a disruptive new technology, to capture its benefits and to avert or limit its dangers.

Anything beyond practical use of surveillance tools is going to impact All.

We need urgent balance.

What will it take to replace the discredited development issues emerging from our conflicts?

How can we overhaull and better manage our united needs for development?

Taking collective action to protect people against poverty and violence is a human issue at the centre of our evolutionary development.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Aye - the lengths the rich and 'powerful' will go to to protect their interests - all in the name of: "for the good of the people".

Things never quite work out how people think - especially when 'manipulation' of others is involved - rather than establishing genuine and sincere agreement. the human soul is far greater than any machine that can be invented - history has always shown us this, in the end.

As the human story has progressed - the number of people willing to speak out against abusive power has risen exponentially. Nothing ever dies, really - only the BAD ideas.

Remember too, there are BILLIONS more 'ordinary' people in the world compared to the very few who would seek to control it for their own selfish interests.

People will agree laws to prevent the use of certain information. People will turn the technology back on those who seek to use it malevolently. For example, corporations which neglect their responsibilities and damage the environment will be exposed. People will learn to turn the cameras on the things which undermine a good society - most especially.... poor leadership.

Those who PLAY with fire - eventually burn themselves.

FASCINATING STUFF..... I find all of you frothing at the mouth about this..but I don't see anyone grasping the theological aspect.. or should I say 'apocalyptic'......

Here is a good laugh for you :) Rev 13

16He (the beast/AntiChrist) also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, 17so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.
18This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.

COMMENT.... now.. while the symbolism of Revelation is open to many interpretations.. and I'm not going to come down hard and fast on any particular one, at least this much can be said with certainty.

The technology now available (including the 'biochip' implantable device) is well able to fulfill the level of control referred to in Revelation. Whether the 'beast/antichrist' is an individual a corporation, or whatever.. it does not change the prediction that 'total control' is the goal. Now.. we are seeing this happening before our eyes, and I guess just as good ol Noah was mocked "Noah..DUDE..what the HECK are you doin there mate... building a huggggge ship on dry land ? now come Onnnnn... you are a prize galah arn't you ?"

But then...they heard it.. 'Kaa-booooom....thunder'...... drops of rain......

"If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."

Julian Cribb's article is funny, but Boazy's tribal theology is hilarious.

THE END IS NIGH!

I have read this three times now, and the only safe conclusion is that the author believes that wild exaggeration is a normal mode of discussion.

It is a nonsense, from beginning to end.

>>For individuals who fall under suspicion this data will be enhanced by the use of nanobots, tiny autonomous surveillance devices as small as an insect or even a grain of sand, which observe and report everything that goes on. Make no mistake, they are already under development.<<

O-o-o-o-kay. But tell me, pray, how will they perform their function? Will they stick to my coat? What happens when I take it off, will the nanobot jump off and cling to my underwear? Ah, perhaps "they" will make me swallow it... but what happens when, you know...? Or perhaps "they" will train the nanobot to follow me around, like some tiny, non-yapping chihuahua.

It's rubbish. Utter nonsense. Pathetic nonsense, in fact. For the real world applications, check out http://www.nanobot.info/ It is interesting technology, potentially useful technology, but also non-scary technology.

>>For the first time in history it will be possible to observe any individual, cradle to grave - and even, via genetics, beyond the grave and before the womb - and file the results.<<

That's a lot of information. Especially when you add...

>>Every monetary transaction you make. Every genetic flaw or feature you own, including your personal smell...<<

OK, it might be possible. But who would do it, and why? What possible threat could there be to having "your personal smell" coded into a database somewhere? Which government department would be responsible for collecting and maintaining this data? How would they collect it in the first place - before or after you showered - and how would they know that it was actually your smell, and not that bloody chihuahua?

Yes, there are some ethics involved in the data that is kept about us. But nothing that remotely justifies these psychedelic fantasies.

I think Professor Cribb has been at the dandelion and burdock. Does that to you.

Hey CJ Morgan ! You are absolutely right!

The moment anyone lurches into religion/theology/superstition it gets to be REALLY funny (or really creepy). Oh well, they may well believe it, but don't base your living on it!

LLuvitar...what's that I hear ?.....

drip.....drop..... rain ? :)

Hey BOAZ

You may well have your irrational fantasies, but don't project them onto anyone else!

As for rain? .....well, we need lots of it in central Australia. Noah or some other dreamt-up historical figure is most welome to bring his preciptation out here.

I reckon and inland sea would be pretty good. Then I can ditch the tractor and get a boat (or hitch a ride with this Noah character).

What a hoot !!

"It's rubbish. Utter nonsense. Pathetic nonsense, in fact."

Completely agree Pericles. If anything, the 'authorities' probably love it when people write articles like this - it expounds the myth that "they" are in control - when as we all know - our Governments can hardly control a hospital waiting list!

I remember back in my youth, working for a mjor DIY retailer, during the summer in my student years. Every so often, one of the staff used to have to say something along the lines of: "security to section 9, please - security to section 9", over the public address system. The turth, of course, was there were no security personnel - it was done to project an impression of *control* where there was none.

Many understand the power of myths and use them accordingly. To those who walk around with their eyes truly open - they are easily expunged.

Always remember folks, life rarely matches the 'hype'.

The mundane is where the beauty of life is to be found - not in the 'super-fantastical'. Those with a 'lot' to lose have a huge amount of FEAR to project.

CLASSIC Kevin - The wisest words I have seen or heard all week since I revisited this article... as a After Dinner peep on APEC.

"Always remember folks, life rarely matches the 'hype'.
The mundane is where the beauty of life is to be found - not in the 'super-fantastical'. Those with a 'lot' to lose have a huge amount of FEAR to project."

And may it remain safer for all the right reasons.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Julian Cribb,

I think you've oversensationalised this one. Nanotechnology has its dark, dark, downside, but your theme deserves a better medium - say a a good sci fi thriller. Not that some of the genre haven't "come true".

Here, for example, we have progress toward the all-destroying ray-gun:

NATURE

13 September 2007 Volume 449 Number 7159, pp 115 - 258

"The production of molecular positronium pp195 - 197"

"When intense positron bursts are implanted into a thin film of porous silica, di-positronium (Ps2) is created on the internal pore surfaces, providing experimental proof of the existence of the molecule."

"Using a more intense positron source, it may be possible to form a
Bose-Einstein condensate of Psf2 molecules, which would be of
significant fundamental interest and a milestone on the path to
produce an annihilation gamma-ray laser."

D. B. Cassidy and A. P. Mills, Jr
doi:10.1038/nature06094
Abstract: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/egBy0Sod2W0HjB0Bbq80E8
Article: http://ealerts.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/egBy0Sod2W0HjB0BbrA0EJ

I'd be pleased to hear from you on this one, Julian, as I can only get the headlines by email from NATURE. I'm assuming you have access to a subscription.

And BOAZ,
tell me - can you say whether Noah took any dinosaurs with him, on the Ark?

Oh dear, what a lot of naifs there are on this website, who have apparently never heard of data mining. Of course this article is science fiction, but the facts underpinning it are real enough. It is intended to foreshadow a potential trend in technology development which, if we fail to protect our rights and freedoms now, we may one day have cause to regret. I, for one, am not confident that as new technologies emerge, they will always be used by generous, well-intentioned and humanitarian people. Others may differ, but history is not on their side.

Absolutely agree! I'm surprised that this article was given so little credence.

(But lay off the naifs bit before you look around Jules.)

Well then, Julian, if you insist on ad hominum categories like "naif", I'll sock it to you good, about the evils of “magnetic micropliers”, as written up in PNAS (parsing mine).

Because it’s plain to me that signals could be applied operating “magnetic micropliers" pinching individual neurons in the human amygdala, via subcutaneous nano-tranceiver implants in blowflies frequenting the unsanitary abodes of feral greenies. Provided they were abducted, implanted and released unawares, and not wearing their tinfoil hats, - heh heh - .

ABSTRACT
"Magnetic microposts as an approach to apply forces to living cells"

Cells respond to mechanical forces whether applied externally or generated internally via the cytoskeleton.

To study the cellular response to forces separately, we [the authors, rather than us mob] applied external forces to cells via microfabricated magnetic posts containing cobalt nanowires interspersed among an array of elastomeric posts, which acted as independent sensors to cellular traction forces.

A magnetic field induced torque in the nanowires, which deflected the magnetic posts and imparted force to individual adhesions of cells attached to the array. Using this system, we examined the cellular reaction to applied forces and found that applying a step force led to an increase in local focal adhesion size at the site of application but not at nearby nonmagnetic posts.

Focal adhesion recruitment was enhanced further when cells were subjected to multiple force actuations within the same time interval.

Recording the traction forces in response to such force stimulation revealed two responses: a sudden loss in contractility that occurred within the first minute of stimulation or a gradual decay in contractility over several minutes.

For both types of responses, the subcellular distribution of loss in traction forces was not confined to locations near the actuated micropost, nor uniformly across the whole cell, but instead occurred at discrete locations along the cell periphery.

Together, these data reveal an important dynamic biological relationship between external and internal forces and demonstrate the utility of this microfabricated system to explore this interaction.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/104/37/14553

Stop laughing - this is serious!

So much criticism of what is clearly a well-informed author.

Criticism of his stating that a full genetic profile of every citizen at birth is taken.

http://natashastottdespoja.deadline.net.au/aspx/campaigns_guthrie_card.aspx
"Did you know her newborn screening blood sample will be stored for 50 years, can be used for research without consent or knowledge once it is “de-identified” , and this baby and her family will never have access to that information?
The Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2003 genetic privacy report recommends the development of nationally consistent rules to cover the collection, storage, use and disclosure of, and access to, newborn screening cards..."

Criticism of references to quantam computers...

http://www.dwavesys.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=4&cntnt01returnid=21
"February 13, 2007
World’s First Commercial Quantum Computer Demonstrated
New System Aims at Breakthroughs in Medicine, Business Applications and Expanded Use of Digital Computers
VANCOUVER, B.C. or MT. VIEW, CA – February 13, 2007 – The world’s first commercially viable quantum computer was unveiled and demonstrated today in Silicon Valley by D-Wave Systems, Inc., a privately-held Canadian firm headquartered near Vancouver..."

and to Nanobots...

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=66720
"11/22/2007 Cancer-Slaying Nanobots
Scientists from MIT have developed nanoparticles that can seek out tumors and release drug payloads directly to afflicted cells. The particles are part superparamagnetic metal (give off heat when exposed to magnetic fields) part DNA and part drug..."

The scientist stands out here, and its the author.

'All truth passes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.' - Schopenhauer

Science without imagination can't move on. The author uses both. Most mockery comes from fear. Fear is reduced by facing what appears to be fearful.

Thank you to the author for a cracking good read.

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.” and “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Albert Einstein.

Bill,

I looked at the article on quantum computing and did a check to see what else I could find out about Dwaves “computer”. All I found were Dwaves press releases printed in full on dozens of sites.

Remember ‘cold fusion’? It was going to revolutionize energy production. Heard anything about it lately? I don’t think so.

The author isn’t a scientist, which is his weakness. His role as a “Science Communicator” ( isn’t that just a glorified journalist) is to communicate the science to the public.

It would be sensible to wait until the science has matured beyond mere demonstration of concept.

Paul L,

Your remark that Julian Cribb is not a scientist throws the baby out with the bathwater.

I can think of few people better qualified to comment on the impact of technology on society. Professor Cribb has an incisive and comrehensive grasp of the advancing front of modern technology, and his expertise is thoroughly respected and actively sought by a wide spectrum of Australian opinion leaders.

Just because I have a warped sense of humour, expressed in wry paragraphs about offbeat subjects, doesn't mean I discount his opinions.

I guess I had better make clear that I am having fun with the topic, not intending to poke fun at the author.

I've met many scientists in my time, and worked with and for dedicated and erudite people, whose understanding of their field is widely appreciated. But they did not necessarily have as broad a perspective on science progress and policy as the author.

The boigraphical blurb at OLO notes that:

"Professor Julian Cribb is a science communicator and Adjunct Professor of Science Communication at the University of Technology Sydney. He is a member of On Line Opinion's Editorial Advisory Board."

I think if you do a bit of Googling, you'll discover that Professor Cribbs is more than just a "glorified journalist".

I only heard of Professor Cribbs very recently. I was sent a link yesterday to a publication from a few years ago regarding AIDS. I understand that his paper could not be published in the US - which ironically in itself demonstrated that very stifling of debate and threat to academic freedom he discussed in that paper.

The quantum computer by DWaves - at the moment of course it is obviously debatable, but rather 'wait until the science has matured', I would welcome what may be the first step on an exciting road that has been dreamed of for some time. A short summary of the most recent demonstration of the 'infant' quantum computer demonstrates the weaknesses of that DWave computer at the moment, but also the importance of that first step. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=456

Paul, I think its wise and prudent to have SOME reservations, but its also good to see the positives about new developments. No doubt in my grandfather's time there would have been skeptics,scientists included, that heaped doubt on anyone who believed it possible to bring images into people's homes, but those with the vision enough to be excited about the possibilities stuck with it and TV was born.

Its not necessary to be a "scientist" to have that vision. We are all born with it, which includes the urgency to investigate the world around us and the exhileration of discovery (or disappointments where an idea fails), but it often seems to be stifled before reaching adulthood - sometimes due to uncreative methods of education or, more recently, by the medicalisation of childhood wherein natural traits of creativity have been redefined as symptoms of psychological disorders. In any event I agree with Sir Vivor that Professor Cribbs is far more than a "glorified journalist", particularly having read the publication I mentioned at the beginning of this comment. I also now appreciate Sir Vivor's comments given his explanation :)

I'll end by reiterating what Albert Einstein said: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” Professor Cribbs, in my view, has both.

Bill Williams, regarding your comment:

"Paul, I think its wise and prudent to have SOME reservations, but its also good to see the positives about new developments. No doubt in my grandfather's time there would have been skeptics,scientists included, that heaped doubt on anyone who believed it possible to bring images into people's homes, but those with the vision enough to be excited about the possibilities stuck with it and TV was born."

Bill, the thing that overshadows my fascination with current technological progress is that it serves corporate needs before it serves human needs.

Unlike human communities, which (in my amateur opinion) have evolved over millenia to assure community survival, corporate "communities" have evolved rapidly since the industrial revolution to assure profit to their stockholders.

The research efforts which are developing quantum computing and nanotechnology are not the musings of whimsical gentlemen (Charles Darwin, say) pottering about their domestic Victorian studies, publishing the odd, earth-shattering thesis and, say, examining endless lots of seashells for the sake of advancing their arguments.

No, these efforts are "corporate science". They are bought and paid for by corporations, on the guess that they will turn a profit for them. Human needs come second, and by more than a nose.

I don't +need+ television, in any fundamental sense of the word. I need oxygen, water, food, safety, recognition within my human community, and so on.
(Maslow's hierarchy suggests an arguable order of precedence - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs).

Television, computer screens, might arguably serve some "higher need", but I (in my own fits of whimsy) tend to lump Maslow's higher needs together as aspirations, rather than needs.

The computer screen in front of me addresses my aspirations. I am not dependent on it for anything beyond entertainment. It is not essential to maintaining my income, and thus assuring my food and shelter. Nothing, in short, to do with the survival needs that have driven biological evolution for billions of years.

Gregory Bateson, in his out-of-print book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity”, argues that "Time is out of joint":

(continued)

(continued)

Gregory Bateson, in his out-of-print book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity”, argues that "Time is out of joint":

"In certain fields, what I have said above is already familiar. Notoriously, the law lags behind technology, and notoriously the obsolescence which goes with senescence is an obsolescence of ways of thought which makes it difficult for the old to keep up with the mores of the young."

Bateson is concerned about the problem of social obsolescence. He asks::

“How shall change in form be +safely+ speeded up to avoid obsolescence?”

He offers no solutions, but draws a significant distinction:

“The rule in biological evolution is plain: The immediate individual effects of bodily functioning shall never be allowed to impinge on the individual genetic coding. … ”

“But in cultures and social systems and great universities, there is no equivalent barrier. Innovations become irreversibly adopted into the ongoing system without being tested for long-time viability; and necessary changes are resisted by the core of conservative individuals without any assurance that these particular changes are the ones to resist.”

Let’s divide Maslow’s hierarchy into two categories: needs and aspirations.

Corporate entities are very adept at fueling our individual aspirations. But the bottom line is, they are not conscious of your survival needs.

They are unconscious of your being, even if you are on their stock register, even if they pay you your wages, because they are not humanly conscious.

Even so, many people seem to confuse corporations with their human employees and publicists. Is something tribal going on, here?

My own Geewhizz-ism about “new developments” has been tempered by the above realisations. Bateson has elucidated a problem which still remains unsolved, a problem first widely publicised by Einstein:

“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

And of course, this is a problem for corporations as well as for we humans.

Sir Vivor - I agree with you generally. Perhaps TV wasn't the best analogy to make, and probably didn't serve the point I was trying to make very well at all. I was trying to address that while skepticism is good - and very necessary with many new developments - that skepticism shouldn't grow so ingrained that it leads to simply 'dismissing' things as impossible.

I'm very aware that many developments are not at all good news in reality, for instance the medicalisation of childhood would appear to be to profit corporations, as would a great deal of the stifling of scientific debate and curtailing of academic freedom that Professor Cribbs touched on in the first paper of his that I mentioned. I'm using those as examples here because I mentioned them both in the earlier post.

To dismiss things as 'impossible' or very unlikely, can be as dangerous as being OVERLY optimistic about new developments, in that those developments that are not intended as an asset to humanity can creep up behind too many people and by the time they realise that it WAS possible, its often too late to try to keep the development in the public interest.

Best I can explain. I'm not a scientist or a professional, and I'm not currently in Australia - at the time of writing the last comment I think it was around 2 am which maybe accounts for the lack of clarity. Its actually late evening here now and I'm not particularly good at expressing things well at the best of times, let alone when tired :)

Now I've got over the 'only 2 posts in 24 hours' criteria, and now its 4 am, I guess I'd better correct the mistake in the last message before someone gets the wrong idea:

where I said: "...as would a great deal of the stifling of scientific debate and curtailing of academic freedom that Professor Cribbs touched on in the first paper of his that I mentioned..."

I MEANT the first of Julian Cribb's papers that I READ and mentioned in my earlier comment. Not HIS first paper! I do know he's been around long before that publication.

I found his argument in that paper impressive, as did the scientist who mailed me the link.

He's a good man, with courage. That was obvious from reading that paper.