>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
>
>"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> > Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > > >
> > > >Since the powerful will have greater computational resources, they
>will
> > > >be able to make better use of the intelligence value of this
>ubiquitous
> > > >surveillance, so even if everyone has the same 'access' (or even if
>the
> > > >powerful have 'less' access, they will still make better use of the
>data
> > > >and will be able to oppress people more as a result. Surveillance is
> > > >merely an intelligence gathering channel. Its value is directly
>related
> > > >to how much you can process in a given amount of time, and how much
> > > >useless data you can filter out. Unless you are going to mandate that
> > > >everyone have exactly the same amount of computing power, no more, no
> > > >less, then your scheme cannot work as you envision it, and it will
> > > >become a tool of repression for the powerful.
> > >
> > > Once again, not really. It doesn't take much computing power at all
>to
> > > browse an efficiently designed and frequently updated database. Each
> > > citizen would not have to bear the onerous burden of creating and
> > > maintaining their own database. The database would be publicly
>maintained
> > > (of course under the glare of a great deal of transparency). When I
>wanted
> > > the info, I'd just cruise on over to the database, log in and have a
>look
> > > around. Not much different than what happens now when you go to
>google.com.
> > > I would not have much advantage using a 1ghz Pentium III over
>somebody
> > > using a 66mhz 486 in browsing such a database.
> >
> > You obviously do not comprehend the scope of the problem at hand. We are
> > talking the ability to monitor and filter the input of MILLIONS of
> > cameras, giving real=time output of deeds being done. The computer that
> > can do that has not been built yet, and when it is YOU won't the first
> > person to get one, it will be the government and the big corporations.
>
>Let me amend myself. Assuming this is a worldwide system, you are talking a
>minimum of 100 - 500 billion cameras. Zero's Pentium III is capable of
>filtering
>the input of between 1-6 such cameras. So Zero would not have the same
>processing
>capability of, say, IBM, which could filter the input of maybe a few
>million
>cameras. Keep in mind that each camera will also have to have a built in
>video
>server (to ensure that the video feed isn't being altered in transit), and
>a
>router capable of handling terabytes of bandwidth, at a minimum, due to
>download
>requests from over 6 billion people. We are not talking little consumer
>web-cams
>here.
>
>Total open ubiquitous surveillance is not only technically impossible,
>unless you
>create a techno-socialist state that says each person can only have the
>same
>processing capability of anyone else, and that individuals cannot
>collaborate on
>distributed processing projects, then it is also not equal either. The
>powerful
>will always find such systems to be of more use for maintaining power and
>supporting oppression than the average person will find it for supporting
>freedom.
How many times can I say it? There will be no need for you to crunch all
the data. The mere fact that it is being recorded for retrieval later *if
necessary* will get the job done.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:43 MDT