Solution to Crime, step 2

I received two comments on reddit:
1)
thats a dumb idea, main reason is to many opportunities for abuse.
why should law abiding/most people deal w/ even more bs beaurocracy/big brother just b/c of the risk few - pose??
What would be a good idea is the following 1. Mandatory education/licensing for all new prospective new parents 2. If potential parent opts out from the education deny the parent all and any state benefits 3. Part of this education should encourage unfit parents to prevent becoming parents - by unfit i mean unemployed/unemployable single mothers with substance abuse problems, recent criminal records shouldnt become parents.

2)
Stupid. Allowing your own government to become the worst kind of voyeuristic criminal doesn't reduce crime, let alone eliminate it.
And if you think that being able to be caught afterward will prevent people from murdering each other, you're rather naive. So, we won't be protected, but we will be spied on. Not the world I want to live in.

I never thought people would jump at the idea because of the quick and easy but...

The first comment raises the first objection that I knew would come out of the idea. Corruption of the system. I ask you, who monitors us now? Ultimately the police are responsible for enforcing the law. Although one could argue that it's the general public that set the tone for what the law enforcers do, ie concentrating on gun laws or drunk drivers and so on. My point is that they, as we have seen, are corruptable. I must strongly point out that the corruption is the exception not the rule and am in no way implying that police forces are corrupt as a whole. So our current system suffers from the same fate.
The rest of the comment talks about licensing parents and those refusing are denied something. I'm not sure that I could defend a system like that, but if you can expand and develop the idea I'm sure we can look at it more closely.

The second comment starts as I expected. My idea is that the group that would administrate such a system wouldn't be sitting infront of monitor watching what you are doing but rather the devices would store the information and only in a case of a crime the information would be pulled from the device, like an eye witness. But this eye witness can only tell the court who was in the area at what time and this witness didn't drink too much that day or is trying to get time cut off their own sentance.
I in no way imagine that this system will stop crime. I must stress that this system could not be used for anything else other than when a crime occurs in the area.

My question now is does the technology exist that this could work?

The IDEA

I beleive there is one solution to simple crime but it would require the population to accept one fact:

IF YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG (LEGALLY) THEN THE FACT THAT A GOVERNING BODY KNOWS YOUR EXACT LOCATION MEANS NOTHING.

By simply installing/inserting some type of transmitter(RFIDs?) on all citizens and installing the receivers in many, many locations no one could be somewhere without someone else knowing. I know there are many things that could go wrong with this theory but as a whole I think it could work.

Say you have a receiver in your house that collects data on who has been in the vicinity and some punk spray paints "PWNED" on your garage door. (I don't have a garage, nor has this happened to me.) You call the police and they come by, install their thumb drive in the unit and it extracts the data required, they go to said punks residence and slap some cuffs on him/her.

A simple scenario but the effect would simplify everything. Or would it? What proof is there that as a techie geek I didn't tamper with the receiver? I don't have that answer but I'm sure there is one. What about people that don't/refuse to have such a device worn/inserted into them. My assumption is that they are doing something or planning to do something that isn't LEGAL. The information gathered by these devices would not be public knowledge and privacy acts would enforce this. Make the distribution of information not intended for the use be a criminal offense.

So where did this idea come from, read the opinion page from the London Free press of Jan 11, 2007

Put technology to work protecting city cabbies
Regarding the article, Cab driver beaten, tossed (Jan. 9).
Another London cab driver has been injured badly enough for us as the public to read it in the news. For each of these occurrences, I can only imagine the number of times a driver has been threatened, robbed or assaulted.
With the taxi industry having so many people in such vulnerable situations, the question becomes not, "Should security cameras be installed in taxis?" but, "Why has this not been taken as a minimal security measure long before now?"
Cab drivers have nothing much more than hope and luck to keep them safe. Unfortunately, hope and luck won't do this. We need to use the technology available to do it. In addition to cameras, there must be other effective ideas. If things stay the same, we will continue to read (and not read) about these stories.

A tracking device as I suggest would have registered the ids of the gentlemen that were in the cab at the time this event happened. I know they were men as one was charged with the incident.

I would like to hear from pro and con.