LiLo in 2007.
Memorial Day saw Lindsey Lohan become the latest in a long line of celebrities who were forced to wear a high-tech alcohol monitoring anklet. This is the second time Lohan has been ordered by a court to wear the device. Created by Denver-based Alcohol Monitoring Systems, the SCRAM anklet tracks blood alcohol content through perspiration and will alert authorities if the wearer drinks no matter where they are. Over 130,000 US citizens have worn the device since its debut in 2003 and, if LiLo is any indication, there will be many more in the years ahead. Check out the enthusiastically ominous video about SCRAM from AMS below.
Prevention may be the better side of cure. That reasoning is leading to an uptake in health monitoring systems, but it’s also bleeding over into criminal justice. We’ve seen a rise in surveillance systems in the US and Europe for everything from warfare to CCTV cameras to the internet. The Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) system fits into this paradigm quite well. Not satisfied with merely punishing offense, society seems bent on preventing offenders from committing their crimes again. There’s something admirable in the spirit of that sentiment, but the real-world results leave me uncomfortable. For starters, AMS is improving the quality of these SCRAM monitors: shrinking their size and including house arrest capabilities:
Criminal courts now use SCRAM devices in all 50 states except Hawaii. The reports from the anklet are wirelessly sent to a central database (Scramnet – sounds delightful) where local law enforcement agents can access the information through a web browser. It’s a very easy way to track and monitor the habits of those on bail or probation. Accuracy is fairly high, with the anklets able to detect a BAC of 0.02 or higher (which corresponds to less than one drink per hour for an average adult man).
Michelle Rodriguez decorated her SCRAM bracelet as a public protest back in 2007.
The devices have a wide appeal to offenders as well as police because they offer an alternative to jail time. Wear the anklet, stay off alcohol and you get to keep out of prison. Not only that, but you get to have the same fashion sense as many celebrities. Besides Lindsay Lohan, there’s also been Michelle Rodriguez, Eve, Jayson Williams, and many others. Tracy Morgan, who had to wear SCRAM in real life, parodied the device on 30 Rock to great comic effect. For some, SCRAM may even be a path towards sobriety. As recently discussed in the New York Times, the anklet has had a remarkably high success rate in keeping offenders off alcohol in Queens.
SCRAM may be a success now, but where does the use of these monitors begin and end? In the future we will be able to provide a much more indepth look at the human body in real time. Alcohol and other drugs will likely be trackable, but so will blood sugar, exercise, perhaps even neurological conditions and emotional states. Our sense of privacy will have to shift as more of our personal data is released into the online cloud, but I’m not sure I’m ready to have my bodily functions added into the mix. Will parents one day be able to use these devices on their teens? Will insurance agencies require them for customers? It’s all fun and games when we watch Lindsay Lohan sport a SCRAM with a designer dress, but the power and range of these devices is growing. Better to figure out how we want to handle the questions of privacy and information now before we all end up wearing one.
[image credit: Dallas Morning News, Daily Mail UK]
[video credit: Alcohol Monitoring Systems]
[source: ABC News, Alcohol Monitoring Systems]
Comments
Helpful info. Appreciate it. Chanced upon you but will be back.
Helpful info. Appreciate it. Chanced upon you but will be back.
Meh, temporarily block the sensor ports with a conductive plastic sheath and back to the booze you go. What about coke the drug of choice for the Hollywood narcissist set. The poor go to jail and the rich play make believe and brag about it.
Meh, temporarily block the sensor ports with a conductive plastic sheath and back to the booze you go. What about coke the drug of choice for the Hollywood narcissist set. The poor go to jail and the rich play make believe and brag about it.
Easy to beat… just insert a piece of saranwrap between the device and your skin.
Easy to beat… just insert a piece of saranwrap between the device and your skin.
Features coming to SCRAM in the near future:
* 4G always connected network
* GPS tracking
* Speaker Phone
* Live Video Streaming to SCRAMNET
* Built in Taser
“Operators” will be able to observe if you are in a “alcohol” danger zone by using a combination of GPS (near a bar?), video streaming (is the AI detecting alcohol containers nearby?), speaker phone (did the AI hear a catch phrase “want a beer?”). If the operator confirms such activities, they can remotely send a command to “Taser” the free-world prisoner.
You can do 10 years in prison, or 30 years with SCRAM, the *choice* is yours!!!
Features coming to SCRAM in the near future:
* 4G always connected network
* GPS tracking
* Speaker Phone
* Live Video Streaming to SCRAMNET
* Built in Taser
“Operators” will be able to observe if you are in a “alcohol” danger zone by using a combination of GPS (near a bar?), video streaming (is the AI detecting alcohol containers nearby?), speaker phone (did the AI hear a catch phrase “want a beer?”). If the operator confirms such activities, they can remotely send a command to “Taser” the free-world prisoner.
You can do 10 years in prison, or 30 years with SCRAM, the *choice* is yours!!!
I’m a little surprised that it doesn’t include GPS tracking, only proximity to the base station. It seems like an “all-in-one” system is the next step.
I’m a little surprised that it doesn’t include GPS tracking, only proximity to the base station. It seems like an “all-in-one” system is the next step.
In the place I live we have this little ritual that we do every time we enter large public places (like a train station or a university campus) – we walk to a person standing at the entrance, open our bags for him/her for a brief check up and continue to our business. Sometimes we will stand for 2 seconds and let him/her scan us with a metal detector.
I’m very used to it and don’t give it any attention.
It is indeed a violation of my privacy but I understand the necessity of it and I know that they are looking for explosives a person might have and use to harm him/her self and others. It has known to happen.
In-fact I’m so used to it, that when I’m in a place that don’t go through this ritual I can still find myself looking for the person at the entrance ready to show my bag’s contents.
I (and apparently the majority of people) find it a fair trade – that guy standing at the mall’s entrance don’t really care what we are carrying. He is bored and tired and underpaid. Also I don’t want someone blowing up the place with me in it.
However defective this method may be it still helps to prevent places getting blown up by someone carrying explosives on their presence.
When we look at the questions of privacy and information we should consider cost vs. value.
I think that we’ll have to go through a time of adjustments to the idea that some things we now consider privet can be let public to some extend without causing us real harm, and the advantages will out weight the defects.
You’re really okay with giving up your privacy (a freedom; not granted) for some semblance of security? I find this rather appalling.
There is little advantage to this, other than to control people. If someone were determined, I find some underpaid mall monkey to hardly be able to provide real security.
I really, really hope this isn’t a US Citizen talking.
We really should stop this erosion of freedom based on some perceived fear.
You’re right, I’m not a US citizen, I’m Israeli.
And yes I don’t mind giving up some aspects of privacy to gain more security mainly because I don’t think they really matter to anyone and all this unimportant information get lost in the infinite amount of other unimportant information around that no one can care to be bothered with. I also believe that for the majority of the population, or as I like to call us “the good people”, their is a clear advantage in giving up some amount of unimportant information to protect our selves as a community against the few that want to inflict us harm.
In the place I live we have this little ritual that we do every time we enter large public places (like a train station or a university campus) – we walk to a person standing at the entrance, open our bags for him/her for a brief check up and continue to our business. Sometimes we will stand for 2 seconds and let him/her scan us with a metal detector.
I’m very used to it and don’t give it any attention.
It is indeed a violation of my privacy but I understand the necessity of it and I know that they are looking for explosives a person might have and use to harm him/her self and others. It has known to happen.
In-fact I’m so used to it, that when I’m in a place that don’t go through this ritual I can still find myself looking for the person at the entrance ready to show my bag’s contents.
I (and apparently the majority of people) find it a fair trade – that guy standing at the mall’s entrance don’t really care what we are carrying. He is bored and tired and underpaid. Also I don’t want someone blowing up the place with me in it.
However defective this method may be it still helps to prevent places getting blown up by someone carrying explosives on their presence.
When we look at the questions of privacy and information we should consider cost vs. value.
I think that we’ll have to go through a time of adjustments to the idea that some things we now consider privet can be let public to some extend without causing us real harm, and the advantages will out weight the defects.
You’re really okay with giving up your privacy (a freedom; not granted) for some semblance of security? I find this rather appalling.
There is little advantage to this, other than to control people. If someone were determined, I find some underpaid mall monkey to hardly be able to provide real security.
I really, really hope this isn’t a US Citizen talking.
We really should stop this erosion of freedom based on some perceived fear.
You’re right, I’m not a US citizen, I’m Israeli.
And yes I don’t mind giving up some aspects of privacy to gain more security mainly because I don’t think they really matter to anyone and all this unimportant information get lost in the infinite amount of other unimportant information around that no one can care to be bothered with. I also believe that for the majority of the population, or as I like to call us “the good people”, their is a clear advantage in giving up some amount of unimportant information to protect our selves as a community against the few that want to inflict us harm.
Ah what a brave new world we live in.
These types of technologies are never scary when first introduced. They come mostly cloaked and shielded by righteous virtue.
TASER? why it’s only a painful electrical charge — you’d rather have the police use that than a gun with a dangerous criminal don’t you? Of course it’s unfortunate that a retired senior citizen died when he was hit with a TASER while running away from the officer….but it’s just a one in a million.
Of course we need to have your 8 year old child either felt up or virtually stripped searched by our new machines — after all you don’t want there to be any doubt that there could be a terrorist here do you? And if there’s a TSA employee enjoying that process, well, it’s unfortunate and we will have it investigated.
Ah, a bracelet for alcohol consumption? Yep, to make sure that people who shouldn’t drink don’t. Of course who really should be allowed to drink? It’s a poison after all.
Hey, you know based on that principle, how about we get an RFID implant that will send a signal for every time we have sex? That way we can control underage sex, inform partners when there’s cheating occurring, and to have a record for health purposes and disease tracking — after all these are all for the good of everyone.
Surely none of these technologies will be abused to the detriment of people in general. But hey, even if they are, they could only be abused for the general weal, so it really doesn’t matter anyway. I mean look how far society has come in tolerating abiding by restrictions and intrusions that would have caused a revolution merely 50 years ago. Surely, like Pavlov’s dogs, we can be content to have ourselves conditioned to tolerate even more intrusion and restriction — after all — it’s for our own good.
And remember. Napoleon is always right.
Ah what a brave new world we live in.
These types of technologies are never scary when first introduced. They come mostly cloaked and shielded by righteous virtue.
TASER? why it’s only a painful electrical charge — you’d rather have the police use that than a gun with a dangerous criminal don’t you? Of course it’s unfortunate that a retired senior citizen died when he was hit with a TASER while running away from the officer….but it’s just a one in a million.
Of course we need to have your 8 year old child either felt up or virtually stripped searched by our new machines — after all you don’t want there to be any doubt that there could be a terrorist here do you? And if there’s a TSA employee enjoying that process, well, it’s unfortunate and we will have it investigated.
Ah, a bracelet for alcohol consumption? Yep, to make sure that people who shouldn’t drink don’t. Of course who really should be allowed to drink? It’s a poison after all.
Hey, you know based on that principle, how about we get an RFID implant that will send a signal for every time we have sex? That way we can control underage sex, inform partners when there’s cheating occurring, and to have a record for health purposes and disease tracking — after all these are all for the good of everyone.
Surely none of these technologies will be abused to the detriment of people in general. But hey, even if they are, they could only be abused for the general weal, so it really doesn’t matter anyway. I mean look how far society has come in tolerating abiding by restrictions and intrusions that would have caused a revolution merely 50 years ago. Surely, like Pavlov’s dogs, we can be content to have ourselves conditioned to tolerate even more intrusion and restriction — after all — it’s for our own good.
And remember. Napoleon is always right.
These kind of stories fall under the same category as the article I had seen about buying a DNA kit at the local drug store. Privacy infringement is one thing, but anything that monitors my consumption of choice is just a little much. Who the heck authorized the law to monitor the public in such manner? I sure don’t remember voting on anything like this.
This is for people with DUIs or who become aggressive when drunk. The alternative given in the article is jail time. I’d probably pick the device.
There is a major issue with this system. First off, this does not solve the problem of drinking inappropriately. All it does is solve the symptom of that problem. By forcing a person not to drink, it is only going to cause resentment and promote an environment in which the person is more likely to break the law either by tampering with the device or simply ignoring it and continuing to drink anyways. And, even if person does work with the system and uses this device or any other like it to the full term of the agreed upon time served, it is only to get it done and over with so they can resume the behavior that got them into trouble in the first place. If a person does not think that they have a problem they will continue behaving in a manner that causes the problem. Case in point, the article states that Lindsey Lohan is using this device for the second time. It doesn’t seem to have worked well the first time, why would it work the second or third or fourth time. The reason systems like this are out there is because the devices are cheaper for the government to use than housing the offenders in already overcrowded prisons and jails, and, by making the people outfitted with them pay for the service. This nets the government extra money to be used in government budgets.
These kind of stories fall under the same category as the article I had seen about buying a DNA kit at the local drug store. Privacy infringement is one thing, but anything that monitors my consumption of choice is just a little much. Who the heck authorized the law to monitor the public in such manner? I sure don’t remember voting on anything like this.
This is for people with DUIs or who become aggressive when drunk. The alternative given in the article is jail time. I’d probably pick the device.
There is a major issue with this system. First off, this does not solve the problem of drinking inappropriately. All it does is solve the symptom of that problem. By forcing a person not to drink, it is only going to cause resentment and promote an environment in which the person is more likely to break the law either by tampering with the device or simply ignoring it and continuing to drink anyways. And, even if person does work with the system and uses this device or any other like it to the full term of the agreed upon time served, it is only to get it done and over with so they can resume the behavior that got them into trouble in the first place. If a person does not think that they have a problem they will continue behaving in a manner that causes the problem. Case in point, the article states that Lindsey Lohan is using this device for the second time. It doesn’t seem to have worked well the first time, why would it work the second or third or fourth time. The reason systems like this are out there is because the devices are cheaper for the government to use than housing the offenders in already overcrowded prisons and jails, and, by making the people outfitted with them pay for the service. This nets the government extra money to be used in government budgets.
At one point in the video they say the data is uploaded to Scramnet, and I swear I thought they were going to say Skynet.
It might as well be SkyNet.
At one point in the video they say the data is uploaded to Scramnet, and I swear I thought they were going to say Skynet.
It might as well be SkyNet.