GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/2/00 2:22:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
> retroman@turbont.net writes:
>
> > Without truly universal coverage, the purported benefits of the system
> > for fighting crime are greatly diminished, and I don't see the point of
> > creating such a system and such a confiscation of human rights unless
> > these benefits are secured. Without the full benefits, the cost-benefit
> > of the liberty-security transfer is not to the advantage of the
> > individual.
>
> How does requiring cops to video-record their interactions with citizens a
> "confiscation of human rights"? How is that "not to the advantage of the
> individual"?
Cops will frequently (as has already happened a number of times) destroy the
tapes to coverup their misdeeds. "Oh, it was broken." However, as I said, putting
a spotlight on any and all government activity IS to the benefit of the
individual. Letting the government into the lives of private citizens to the same
degree, when they control the system keys, the processing capabilities, and the
monopoly on massive force, is a confiscation of human rights.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:01 MDT