I have to confess that I've only been skimming this thread due to the volume,
but I think I see that the discussion is being carried out about what might
be a straw man, i.e. the notion of truly UNIVERSAL surveillance. I can't
help but wonder whether the discussion might be more fruitful if we
considered more possible scenarios. For instance, what if a community
decided that all police officers had to have a "shoulder cam" that recorded
only when that officer was on duty, extending the highway patrol car
"pull-over" cams that have been in use in new Jersey now for a year or so?
Or even less intrusive, that courts were to decide that a search or an arrest
that wasn't recorded was presumptively unconstitutional? Or that an oral
contract that wasn't recorded was voidable? Could those be bad things?
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:59 MDT