Can Existing Technology Be Used To Better Serve and Protect Us?

          Traditionally, the practice of sending people to the moon has been widely embraced as one of the crowning achievements of US culture. I do applaud how the "space camp" model has been sometimes used in education, to challenge and educate many children. One of my nephews has benefitted from such an educational project. Yes, I know that this mission of sending people to the moon has been a source of pride and fulfillment to the involved astronauts, their families and their communities. This mission has been a mark of intellectual giftedness, courage and enterprise. Some were even contemplating sending astronauts to Mars! For many years, I had complained about the money that had been spent to send astronauts to the moon, when we faced massive need on Earth which the government would claim that we could not afford to address adequately. I never would have raised a fuss about spending money on this space mission if I did not see that the money could be better used to meet more pressing needs than to present enriched opportunties to the more fortunate. Yes, later last year, the US government has suspended the space shuttle mission to deal with the US impending budget disaster.
           Yet can budget resources be allocated to apply existing technology to better protect and serve us as a society? When I discovered social media and got involved in spreading awareness about missing people and surrounding or related issues, I discovered an interesting concept: The technology that NASA has used in their space shuttle missions and as it stands today, can be put to use to empower law enforcement officers (LEO's) to more efficiently find missing people, to more effectively investigate crimes of all kinds, and to prevent much crime and people vanishing in the first place. This would ensure a safer society for all of us. To make this all work, we would have to understand and embrace this idea and urge the government to adapt the existing technology toward these ends and allocate the national budget accordingly.
          A number of us have been circulating a petition, targeted to President Obama and to US Congressmen and US Senators, to take existing technology and to figure out how to use it to enable our LEO's to better serve us as they investigate all different types of crime and to aid them in missing persons searches. Still, in spite of the time and dedication of the few advocates of this idea and awareness of its critical importance to a safer society, I have noted a substantial resistance to this idea on the part of many missing persons and crime victim advocates. So many of these advocates spend endless hours in researching, awareness and updating the public about individual missing/unidentified persons cases, and providing updates. I praise the dedication and compassion of so many of thse advocates in their hard work. Yet it seems that so many of thse advocates seem much more comfortable getting out the word about individual cases and lamenting the issues surrounding crime and missing people. Yet so many of these same advocates either totally ignore or resist taking the time to educate themselves about the why and the how of updating so many crime victim investigations, missing persons searches and the resources and training of LEO's. A couple of people have said bluntly, "This idea will never work."
          No, I do not doubt for a minute the implicit need to continue to educate the public about crime, missing people, the surrounding issues and to research individual cases, get the word out about them and to provide updates. But if many more advocates would take time out from that to educate themselves about an idea that can be implemented that may make the work of LEO's and their own work, easier and more effective, think what a difference we could make for present and future families of missing/unidentified people and for their loved ones.
          And it has been disturbing that the media have done almost nothing to learn about, much less educate the public about, the dire need to upgrade and update criminal investigations, missing persons searches and the training and resources of LEO's. It has been suggested that media coverage of this idea would not be considered "cool" and would not help with ratings. But wouldn't the media be much more likely to listen to us if they could hear more than just a few of us plead with them to talk about this idea and to educate the public about it?
          We need to keep doing what we are doing in advocacy plus take time to educate ourselves about this idea that, admittedly, is untested and untried. But we should not write it off as impractical and unworkable until we give it an honest look. Too many lives are at stake and many future lives can possibly be saved by this idea being adapted and implemented. Since cost would be an issue, maybe we can cut costs on other things that aren't as essential, increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires,  and balance the budget in other ways.
          What is the potential of this idea? It could make missing person searches more efficient and effective. Upgrading existing technology and the training and resources of LEO's could enable them to track down runaways more easily and faster, re-uniting them with their families faster. This could enable LEO's to track down abductors, murderers and other criminals who are responsible for people's disappearances. This would increase the odds that these individuals could be found more quickly, and found safe or at least alive. If missing persons are still found deceased, the nightmares of their families could be ended more quickly as their loved ones can be identified more quickly and they can find answers faster. This idea could help prevent and reduce John and Jane Does. Aren't we all, especially families, utterly weary of the maddening slowness of so many missing persons and criminal investigations and how the nightmares of so many go on for years, even decades? So should we at least keep open mind to an idea that can help alleviate much of this? Yes, it is not perfect but aren't we ripe for a change in how things are currently done in these matters? So if we are really serious about those who we advocate for and yearn to help, we need to give this idea a fair shot, and consider it as we educate ourselves and appeal to those in power about it.
          This proposed idea could also aid LEO's to prevent and end many nonviolent crimes that also endanger us, if not physically. With our fear of identity thieves, many forms of fraud and corruption and countless online criminals, we should at least consider the use of existing technology to aid LEO's to prevent and end many of thse crimes. For it may help LEO's track down many of such criminals, many who are slick and able to escape detection, especially so many of them who are able to hide behind computer screens and do untold damage. We advocates all need to work together not only in crime victim and missing persons advocacy, but to, in much larger numbers, not only educate ourselves and others about the need to upgrade and update LEO's jobs in protecting and serving us. Those in power need to listen to us and do everything they can to implement the technology that we now have. Together we can make this happen.
          Yes, there are concerns about privacy and cost as well as concerns about the "nuts and bolts" of using this technology efficiently, with government "red tape." True, I am talking about a mere idea, but it has the potential to become much more. Lives are on the line. So before you write this off as nonsense and those of us advocate for it as not knowing what we are talking about, I challenge you to please click the links I will provide below and take time to educate yourself. And if you are convinced that this may have merit, I urge you to sign the petition at the link I will provide below. If you continue to have concerns or objections to this idea, I welcome your comments.

http://findthemissing.vze.com/  
This website provides much information about the whys and the hows of putting existing technology to use to update and upgrade missing person and criminal investigations and that would provide more resources and better training for LEO's.

http://www.change.org/petitions/petitionthe-media-needs-to-educate-the-public-to-help-find-missing-children-women-men-quickly-reduce-other-crime-using-existing-military-technology
This is the petition about this, targeted to President Obama and to US Congressmen and US Senators, that some of us have been circulating. I encourage everyone to sign it.

Unequal Interests

          You are fascinated with a member of the opposite sex. You do what you can to get near the object of your fascination. You even gather the courage to make small talk and promise yourself that you will call her and ask for a date. This person's actions show that she does not care that you exist.
          You enjoy a budding friendship with a person who has been showing interest in you and asking you about yourself. You feel that you can trust him and you confide personal information that you share with few people. Soon, this person seems to cool toward you until he is ignoring you. You email him, you write him and you call him but you get no response.
          You are an enthusiastic Facebook user and are trying to add people because you have heard about them and they have added your other friends. Your friend requests remain ignored.
          You correspond with a person on Facebook and befriend the person, believing that a real friendshiop is forming. You share personal information with her. One day you see her posts but her name is in black letters and no longer links to her profile; she has blocked you!
          You deeply believe in your cause and want others to share your passion. You can't stop talking about your cause or shouting out about it. However, both in person and online, many of your contacts are showing little or interest.
          You are working hard to get your new nonprofit "off the ground" and badly need donations to make this happen. So you use all the networks available to you to ask for donations, appealing for help. You are getting some response, but not nearly enough.
          You set your sights on volunteering with a certain nonprofit and apply, trying your bet to make a good impression while being honest. The nonprofit lets you know that they are not interested
          A facebook friend has let you know, in no uncertain terms, that she does not want your posts on her page.
          You are volunteering to "telemarket for your faith" and while a few people show interest, a number have made their lack of interest explicit and a couple have hung up on you.
          You are going door-to-door to sell your product and a number of people refuse to open their doors to you; several have slammed their doors in your face.
          What do all these scenarios and so many others like them that we all face, have in common? They all share the fact that one party in the scenario has much more interest in engaging the relationship than the other. This happens to us all the time: we find ourselves far more interested in engaging in a relationsip, whether love or business, personal or professional or offline or online, than the other party is. And I must point out, there are also those times when this principle operates in reverse, that the other party is far more interested than we are in engaging in a relationship. This has been called The Principle of the Least Interest.
           In a perfect world, this principle would not even be an issue. But this is very frequently an issue for all of us, in some form or other. In an ideal world, we al would have the judgment to perceive and become interested in engaging only with those parties that we know would share our interest. No one would know the pain and heartache of another's nonresponse or rejection. Sadly, we do not live in that kind of world. We are often unable to judge who will return our interest in engaging in a relationship with us, whether in love or business. When the interest is not returned, we are forced to do things on the terms of the party who is least interested. We must take no for an answer. When people refuse to accept the other party's nonresponse to their interest, this can evolve into stalking or worse. Refusal to respect this Principle of Least Interest is at the root of much violence and crime where rejection is the motive.
          We know that behind most stalking, harmless and more sinister, is the refusal to take no for an answer. Here is where I need to offer a disclaimer concerning the harmless variety. In the field of autism and related cognitive differences which affect social perception and social skills, much behavior that can be called harmless stalking has been observed, while some have had to face consequences for this stalking behavior. The nature of autism and related cognitive differences makes it tough to understand the Principle of Least Interest and the need to take no for an answer. These forms of harmless stalking are very rarely done with any harmful intent and the offenders need help and counseling, rather than retribution. It is the harmful, potentially violent stalking that we need to stand against; it is these stalkers who often get covered in the media and who increase and deepen the stigma of autism and related cognitive differences.
          Aside from this, it indeed hurts, even much so, when another party refuses or cannot return our interest. Yet attempting to force that party's interest and allowing ourselves to become stalkers not only annoys the other but is not in our best interests either. The other party will be annoyed but we will be making ourselves sick and wasting our time. Why do we want the interest of someone who has little or no interest in us, whether our business or our love or whatever else we want to offer? Why is it so hard to take no for an answer and to accept the fact that we have been rejected or that another is just not interested in us or what we want to give? These words are meant as much for myself as much as they are for anyone else.
          We may be aware of the high-profile case of the biological father of Jaycee Dugard's birth father, who after many years, reportedly wanted to enter into a relationship with her, but Jaycee was not interested. He appeared on a well-known talk show to discuss this. I'm sure most of us would see how unwise it would be to force one's self on a traumatized person who did not need to complicate her life one whit more, which Jaycee would have been doing if she had allowed her birth father in her life. In cases like this respecting the Principle of Least Interest needs to be done for the other party. I have heard of cases where birth parents yearned to re-unite with their birth children, after many years of placing them in adoption, but those birth children were not interested. This is another case where the best interests of the other party need to come first. This principle needs to be observed in numerous custody cases where older children express the desire to live with the other parent. There are many other examples.
          In my own life, there was, many years ago, the intance of a certain young man in a singles group whom I was fascinated with. I liked his personality, his rugged good looks, his affection with women. I would try to get near him as well as show my feeling for him. But one evening, it apparently dawned on him that I was interested in him. Nippting this interest in the bud, he rebuffed my advances when I started to stroke his back. This hurt! And he never spoke to me again and refused to acknowledge my existence. In another intance, I was a member of a certain church for years. I entered into a ministry where I was matched one-on-one with certain fellow parishioners. One of them wanted no part of it and I was notified that she had ended our match. That hurt; I felt slapped in the face. In the same parish, I was interested in certain members and would get near them and sometimes communicate with them. All to no avail. They never returned my interest or responded to my overtures. As all of us can, I can testify to lots of unreturned emails, letters (if we write), messages, and phone calls. Most recently, I applied to volunteer with a nonprofit, wanting to "step up" my involvement with them as "just a supporter." I applied, even volunteering personal information that I thought could explain material in my background check as well as impress them with my candor and openness. I tried very hard to make a good impression. However, the nonprofit contacted me and let me know, in explicit terms, that they were not interested in my volunteer services. This devastated me. And the parties involved have not spoken to me since. And I'm sure most of you can tell similar stories.
          On a spiritual level, God is the ultimate Example of Someone Who respects the Principle of Least Interest. He respects human freedom; He does not force Himself on us. He has never barged in anyone's life who did not want Him and He never will. As God in the flesh, Jesus never went where He was not wanted. Once, He visited a village but the village wanted no part of Him. Two of His disciples wanted Him to call down fire on the unwanting village. Jesus rebuked these disciples and refused to listen to them. We need to follow His model.
          Letting go and taking no for an answer usually hurt to some degree but for our interests and for others, it needs to be done.