Wonder when this will become an app on your smart-phone?
His name is Hong Gwang Ui, a 43 year-old father of a four year old son, and using his knowledge as an engineer for the military he crafted a simple device which sets off an alarm if within 30 meters of a convicted sex offender.
Mr. Hong said he invented the machine because “as a father of a four year-old son, every time I hear a news story about a heinous sexual crime the anger swells up inside. After thinking over ways to help prevent these crimes, I developed this device.”
[...]
The ankle bracelets emit a signal on a specific frequency to the control center every 6 seconds providing the authorities with the person’s location. Mr. Hong’s EABD simply beeps when this signal is detected within 30m.
He received the go-ahead from the Ministry of Justice to start selling these devices online from next month. To avoid further human rights issues, Mr. Hong only plans to sell to fixed locations like schools and playgrounds.
You can read the rest of the article here – at Rocket News.
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
This might be a great idea.
Good catch Robert.
Who is supposed to carry these beepers around – the adults or the children?
If it’s the children, then it could actually be a bad thing – as it could give of a false sense of security. The children may think they are safe if it’s not beeping – and therefore put their trust in strangers if the machine is not beeping.
Great idea, and it’s also good to see a father, a normal citizen, taking child safety matters into his own hands. This is how Korea will eventually change. People will slowly get tired of the broken justice system, the glass ceilings, the corruption, the lies etc, and normal citizens will invent ways around these things. They will circumvent the entire ajeossi system.
if this can be developed for convicted sex offenders, why can’t it be developed for criminals in general, or homosexuals, or any other category of people?
microsoft developed an “avoid ghetto” app that sparked some controversy http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57355325-501465/microsoft-avoid-ghetto-patent-sparks-controversy/
No one sees the other problem in this news article?
“Hong Gwang Ui, a 43 year-old father of a four year old son,…”
He’s 43 and only has one child?!
Why “ankle bracelets” that merely track the perv? Why not a “ball bracelet” that actually tightens and/or shocks if and when a no-fly zone is approached. That would be more better.
My bullshit detector is starting to make a beeping sound.
thankswww:
“www” is often used by Japanese 2ch netizens to express “warau warau warau” (laugh laugh laugh).
Hey, if AES is to be believed, doesn’t this guy already have a sex offender tracker? After all, he’s got a 4-year old son, who, no doubt, yells “Waegukin!” every time he sees a foreigner.
not necessarily…
Korean kids under the age of seven can’t tell the difference between a Korean and a Waegukin these days…
They need their parents or an older sibling to point it out to them..
isn’t there a town in the US where sex offenders can only live under a bridge because of all the ridiculous restrictions placed on the distances to various things they can live near?
I think I read it also includes people who aren’t even on the list for doing the really bad stuff
I don’t know.. i almost think our knee-jerk reaction to sex offences is getting out of control
Jakgani way to sperwer your BS comment.
Jashin,
Why would you want an app that tells you when there is a gay person near? Looking for a date? Or, would you just run away like a little girl?
FYI…check out “Jack’d” … gays have had an app for “detecting” each other for several years. Hope it serves your needs whatever those may be (wink…wink).
Yeah, there is a lot of that going on in Korea. Costs a lot of have kids in Korea because of all the after school instruction it takes to get kids into college.
@12
You’re right, that place does or at the very least used to exist. One of the practical problems with placing all the additional restrictions on sex offenders after they are released is that they become so marginalized, isolated, (in addition to facing physical assault, as there are on neighborhood registries as sex offenders), and often not being able to get a job or a place to live, that they: 1st, go on the lamb to escape the restrictions, and 2nd, begin to re-offend in even more offensive ways as they have absolutely nothing else to live for. If you have a system where they are released, ie. not castrated or imprisoned for life, the practical result of squeezing them too hard after release is an almost a guarantee of having them re-offend.
@12 fanwarrior and @16 madar, you make good points. The problem is that men, politicians, barflies, jocks, hardcore convicts behind prison bars, police, prosecutors, society… engage in one upsmanship puffing their chests on what should be done and they would do to sex offenders. No one dares even assume as a devil’s advocate’s position and question whether the full on censure fits because they would shame the devil himself for assuming it.
Can you think of anyone in any of the above groups who would raise as a question, are we too tough on sex offenders?
Im sure Joe and fanwarrior would really welcome a child molestor or a rapist if one moved in next door. Maybe have picnics with him or invite him over for a barbecue and a swim in the backyard pool.
Are we too tough on sex offenders or are we too soft? Why is PHYSICAL castration out of the question? Are we going to get onto the RIDICULOUS topic of human rights for these scumbags?
Haha. No, you’re right: we should reserve human rights for the people who we like/deserve them. Fuck everyone else, with razor wire. It’s the righteous thing to do.
No, we should do away with the ridiculous concept of HUMAN rights and talk about INDIVIDUAL rights, which, unlike Human Rights which are imagined to be inherent in our “humanity” (sic), carry with them the very unpopular notion of responsibilities and the possbility of being stripped of rights by having trampled on those responsibilities.
#13
nothing interesting to say hamel? FO
You need to reread what I wrote, particularly the following:
Apparently, no one should dare to even question that no one dares even assume a devil’s advocate position….
Gebus, Salaryman. Reading entails more than just moving your eyes over the words.
Isnt it defeating the purpose of assuming the devil’s advocate position to first tell us you are doing so? In any case, as much as all the big defenders of these scumbags like to puff themselves up, none of them would welcome one of these sex offenders to live next door. They do however like nothing more than seeing these guys released into OTHER PEOPLE’S neighborhoods: it satisfies their liberal leanings and its low risk at the same time.
First of all, no.
Second, I did not post that I would assume the devil’s advocate position, I wrote, as you so plainly helped me illustrate, that the chest puffing posturing of one upmanship crowd precludes even assuming such a position.
**********************
(On a sidenote Salaryman, I grew out of Ayn Rand and her movement at 17 because of the inbred culture of intellectual repression: They get to question everyone and everything else, but no one may dare to question them.)
Ayn Rand,
I enjoyed her books, both the novels and the non-fiction, but never considered myself part of her movement, so Im wondering where you are bringing her name up. Curious.
And what is the point of taking the DA position in this regard anyway? Is it not simply pointless posturing? The test is still: do you want a pedophile rapist next door to YOU?
The point is that the question should be addressed because if it is not, which by the way is the reality of the situation, the posturing sucks everyone’s position down further. Jail–>Imprisonment–>scarlet letter shaming–>separation–>chemical castration–>PHYSICAL castration–>death penalty–> ….
What’s after the death penalty? “I think their offending DNA should be weeded from the race. Kill the perv’s kids too, so we won’t have to deal with this in scum in the next generation.” F*ck, yeah.
What’s that you say? The last part is a bit too far for your taste? Too bad no one dares to even ask the question.
Did I just punch out the strawman or reduce the argument to absurdity?
Because her sense of individualistic philosophical purity demanded that it not be questioned. Total claptrap.
As far as sexual predators go I am for physical castration. I am also for dumping their corpses in the gutter after they die..preferably of a painful infection.
Your post #26 is sheer hyperbole, but even if it came to it, one need not play DA to argue against the last step. One can take a harsh position up to physical castration and oppose the last step on purely philosophical grounds without having to defend the undefendable. Do you not believe in the concept of personal responsibility? Was not Tom Paine’s principled stance againt the monarchy, or Lysander Spooner’s argument against the Constitution argued on the grounds that a child is not bound by his father’s covenants or actions? have you ever even read Paine or Spooner? No need to play games and be a “devil’s advocate.” That’s for children and trolls.
#27 but why bring it up t0 me?
So, you have unilaterally decided that physical castration is defensible and anyone who dares to question the efficacy, justice, reasonableness, constitutionality… of that extreme measure (by those who “only” support incarceration) as soft on sexual predators.
Please take note: I have in no place stated my position or opinion on such matters, including physical castration, I have only posted that I support the free flow of information and debate and that all positions should be debated.
Look at #12 fanwarrior’s conclusion to his post again:
The barroom brawlers, super children’s advocates, and death row inmates (imprisoned for other than sex crimes) so thoroughly squelched the debate that an anonymous poster still needs to qualify his ideas with “I don’t know… I almost think… is (starting to get) out of control.” Way to go, super advocates of individuality, freedom, and free speech.
Tom Paine, Constitution? ummm…. Yeah. Try to get physical castration past the 8th and 14th amendments to that same referenced Constitution.
I never wrote that I would play the devil’s advocate; I wrote that no one advocates the other side in this “debate”, which is really a misnomer without an other side, and the need for the DA position because no one would willingly take the other side.
Nonetheless, if anyone can reasonably support that I am playing games, a child, or trolling, then I’ll drop out.
Read well. Tom Paine – Monarchy. Lysander Spooner – Constitution. Reading is more than just scanning with the eyes, you know?
Im not a big fan of the constitution, so forgive me if I do not attempt your challenge.
Anonymous posters can qualify or not. I dont qualify my opinions, I state them with no hesitation. Maybe that anonymous poster needs more confidence in his opinions.
Stop playing games and come out with your position. Are you a believer in the “human rights” of those who blatently violate the same rights of others? Are these rights inviolable and inalienable? Are these people sick and do they deserve leniency or are they sadistic psychotpaths who lost all claim to any sort of rigthts whatsoever? would you like one living next door to your family, your wife or kids?
I understand that English is your second language, so I suggest some English syntax lessons. On the second part, I take your imitation as the sincerest form of flattery.
You’re not a big fan of the Constitution? Do you expect discerning readers to take that as a comment on the Constitution or on you?
Perhaps you merely scanned with your eyes the part where I wrote, “No one dares even assume as a devil’s advocate’s position and question whether the full on censure fits because (…barflies, jocks, death row murderers, …) would shame the devil himself for assuming it” and “so thoroughly squelched the debate that an anonymous poster still needs to qualify his ideas with ‘I don’t know… I almost think… is (starting to get) out of control…’ ”
I will be perfectly clear on my position: I AM FOR HONEST, OPEN DEBATE ON ALL FACETS OF ALL CONSIDERATIONS.
Does ALL CAPS help?
And on what side would you be in that debate?
No, Im not a fan of he constitution, Joe. You can glean from that what you like about me. I think Spooner’s attack on it was plenty valid, and it does contain some NASTYNESS for example the 16th ammendment.
I think you are wrong. PLENTY of people assume that position. Usually very liberal minded progressives who think that the nastier the criminal the more we should be lenient on him. These progressives favor light sentencing and early release into communities (though usually not their own). But most normal people have a natural reaction to such people (revulsion) and rather tend not to take the DA’s position because they do not have empathy for vile garbage.
The side that I am open to considering that which I lack the capacity to consider (due to my reflexive reactions) without other thinkers’, or if necessary the DA’s, input.
…and once again I have thrown in my face that despite what my mommy and grammy told me all the while growing up, I’m not special at all. I am just like most people. I need the help of better thinkers, who have brain activity above the medulla’s involuntary reactions, to raise the questions.
Jesus Christ, Joe, raise the questions. Honestly, NO ONE is stopping you and in no way are you special for doing so. But I think its largely a masturbatory exercise, intellectual beating off, and you would, if it were within your power, prevent the rapist from moving next door to you. You would be crazy not to, from a purely self-preservationist perspective.
@35 Sal, very good. Exactly. Raise the questions.
Now move your eyeballs again over your first post in this thread @18, which was in response to my first post in this thread @17, which the last sentence read as follows:
Joe, plenty of people are raising these questions. You might as well be talking about breathing.
@37 Sal, you should have posted that 20 posts previously. …way to derail a thread. I’ve only had that single point in my posts.
I wish that I could type faster and with more accuracy than I can read. You truly, much like other idiot savants, are gifted.
Now now, personal insults, how unbecoming. Joe, humor me a little and tell me what questions you are really raising on this, or really, on any other issue.
You chaps deserve each other…
Common loathing of paedophilia is preventing detailed scientific study of its nature and causes.
http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/academic-interest-in-taboo-must-move-beyond-immediate-condemnation-20121127-2a4ev.html
Geez Sal, do you even read your own posts? From your immediately previous post:
Sorry, my bad, I should have specified: what ORIGINAL questions are you raising? Not regurgitating from decades of debate on this issue. As I said, everything you’ve been “raising” has been raised by countless of people before.
Well, Sal, in my original post, which you took such offense to and started us on this and which hasn’t changed in the intervening 25 posts, I wrote:
If you had only even moved your eyeballs across @41 babotaengi, post only 2 posts prior to your repeating the same question, you would glaze over the following:
No, I didn’t read the article; I only needed to read this part of the link: “academic-interest-in-taboo-must-move-beyond-immediate-condemnation-”
The link itself summarizes the environment and the question that I only dare to ask on an anonymous, internet chat board. From @17,
Sal, please let this be the end of it. I just wanted to raise a question. I don’t want anyone, let alone sex offenders (as you so stated) in my pool.
Why are you restricting the discussion to those groups, Joe? Plenty of OTHER groups exist, Joe, and those groups are raising a number of questions, Joe.
I really dont see, Joe, how loathing of something so worthy of loathing (it is worthy of loathing, Joe) need to restrict research into it. Do we not loathe cancer, Joe? Do we do cancer research, Joe? From my own personal perspective, Joe, I can separate the two: I can support research into pedophilia and loathe it at the same time. But more than pedophiles, I loathe the people trying to push this liberal agenda that we are supposed to accept, or at the very least excuce their behavior. Guaranteed, no matter what the research said, Joe, no matter how far it went to excuse the behavior of pedophiles, I would murder anyone who molested one of my children.
And again, to claim that EVERYONE engages in chest puffing is hyperbole, and plain wrong.
Sal, take a breath. Reread my initial post, which you went off on a tangent on. All I did was agree with @16 madar who noted @12 fanwarrior’s post. Here is madar’s post:
Here’s my @17 post:
Sal, if you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m for debate and exchange of ideas in academia or on the esoteric. I’m even more for debate in real world situations where the status quo clearly rates a fail. If you think about it, I haven’t posted anything off the reservation.
Here’s your immediately responding post @18:
They only rambling in your post that made any sense was “Are we too tough on sex offenders or are we too soft?”
(BTW, your “Are we going to get onto the RIDICULOUS topic of human rights for these scumbags?” really illustrates my point of one upsmanship and chest puffing.)
Now breathe, read again, and breathe. Did madar, fanwarrior, or I write anything indefensible let alone offensive?
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }