x4740NWhy don't ships onboard sensors detect medical emergencies
badcommandorfilenameI think the canon reason given for this and other “why didn’t the ships computer just stop them?” situations that it’s a privacy violation to just go around scanning people without their permission.
Although they do seem to do a lot of “scanning for life-signs” so who knows?
FaceDeerFirst thing I'd do when boarding a Federation ship is tell the computer it's authorized to keep an eye on my vitals.
SuperbSince when was there an expectation of privacy on a Starfleet ship?
Starfleet is not the military as they are so often having to remind everyone
scanning for life-signs
Yeah, and I’ve never figured out the security feature that makes scanning for life-signs more effective when you sign a little song to the computer. But sometimes I guess it’s just more urgent to know, little life signs, where are you?
It’s based on the same technology that makes you turn faster in Mario Kart if you tilt your head and turn the controller like a steering wheel.
Also HIPPA
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
HIPAA
Ty. Not American
OdinkirkA lot of my head canon around this and the notable lack of automation prevalent in Starfleet: it’s a futuristic, post-scarcity jobs program. Yes, it’s about exploration and rendering assistance and all that. But it gives people something to do, a way to serve the whole. Picard said as much to Geordi when Scotty was aboard. I’ve of the many things Starfleet does is give people a sense of usefulness.
Simon ZerafaAlmost, but quite to point of human “jobs” in The Culture books, where benevolent AIs actually run everything. Humans are considered by the AIs as pets.
Because unlike our world, the Star Trek world actually respects people’s privacy. Ever noticed how people just vanish from the ship and the computer never alerts anyone until someone asks for their location? When Trek was written, the idea of constantly monitoring and reporting on individuals was abhorrent. It’s disgusting how willingly people just accept that now.
But like, they can still track you. And removing the badge that lets them track you is basically a crime. Also section 31 exists basically just to track and monitor people.
They can locate you. They don’t actively monitor you. That’s a big difference.
I do have a gun aimed at your head, but I’m not gonna fire it
Section 31 were created as the bad guys who Sisko and crew fought against every step of the way. And I don’t use the phrase “genocidal maniacs” lightly, but they were literally xenocidal and Sloane was, as a spy, less of an Ian Fleming James Bond type and more of a John le Carré type—an actual maniac in the piece of human wreckage who’s been turned violent and crazy by the stress of war. (I really wish his end had come at Sisko’s hands, and involved contrasting Sisko’s actions in Pale Moonlight with Sloan and 31’s degeneration in to xenophobic crimes of extermination, and how both shared the same origin but ended up in very different places.
Be that as it may, he made some valid points talking to Bashir.
"The Federation needs men like you, Doctor. Men of conscience, men of principle, men who can sleep at night. You’re also the reason Section Thirty one exists. Someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn’t share your sense of right and wrong. "
Nah. ‘Oh you can be nice, but those people over there aren’t nice, so we need to be even less nice to protect you!’
Race to the friggin bottom
The most awesome thing about those episodes for me is that there’s no clear answer. It’s thought provoking and leaves you considering the perspectives of both men. I didn’t say he was right, I said he made some good points. Star Trek of that era was generally idealistic and DS9 was the first foray into considering the harsh realities of idealistic perspectives in a universe that will violate any ideal against you to achieve advantage. What do you do? There’s not really a clear answer IMO, it’s a philosophical quandary.
well, Sisko was pretty clear “We don’t do that shit”
Which might sound hypocritical with some of the actions he took, but actions of an individual that would face consequences vs actions of an institution that are beyond oversight are very different beasts
I completely agree. I think that’s the major point they try to make. They recognized that sometimes they have to make choices they wouldn’t otherwise make, or that they’d condemn under better circumstances, but they stand ready to face the consequences once the choice has been made. They generally make them out in the open, or reveal them after the need for secrecy ends.
That’s pretty much exactly how it seems to me. I guess I understand how American fans who were born after 9/11 and Facebook might have a different perspective, because privacy means something different now–but it’s cognitive empathy, which means I understand their feelings, not the sympathetic empathy of someone who shares it.
Ironically, I learned these cognitive empathy skills from Captain Picard, and still consider TNG possibly the best way to expose young people to the skill. :-)
MuchPineapplesThe computers in star trek have no real intelligence, everything needs user input. I mean, their weapons don’t even auto aim.
Mark MercerStarfleet learned painful lessons from Control in the 2250s and M-5 in the 2260s.
Given the influence of Captains Pike & Kirk with Starfleet Command, as to how autonomous ship operations were devastating, in events that happened on the original NCC-1701, it's no surprise that shipboard systems later were less autonomous than my smart thermostat.
Well, until Zora.
Except for that time the enterprise became intelligent in emergence and birthed a new lifeform
And someone just needs to program that function in
Hurculina DrubmanRick Sanchez’s garage could do that.