Spike Jones wrote:
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > All this incomplete coverage will do is cause more criminals to commit crimes in
> > areas that ARENT under coverage. The crime rate in more rural areas will go up,
> > people will get whacked out on the moors, etc.
> Right you are Mike. If we go with transparent society, we *must* set
> aside reservations or no cam zones somewhere. We have repeatedly
> demonstrated that we as a society cannot totally eliminate crime. We can
> only localize it.
> Some of you will be in Palo Alto in May for the Foresight nanoschmooze. There
> you may see a social experiment of sorts. In Palo Alto, there is waaay more
> money than anyone knows what to do with, therefore there are many
> private security systems which include recording, time-stamping cameras.
> Just on the other side of the freeway is a community where the Bay Area
> has pretty much decided to park its poor, its criminal element, etc, called
> East Palo Alto. There are few police there, even fewer security cameras.
> Look it over if you are in the neighborhood. If the Bay Area goes transparent,
> I would propose East Palo Alto as a no-cam zone. spike
There is a sf book I read a month ago that was published in the 50's called _Gladiator
At Law_, that does a pretty good job of forecasting a serious dichotomy like you
describe, only its not surveillance that causes the dichotomy, but a technology of a
fully automated house that a guy develops, but his patent gets controlled by major
industry to house its employees (on a lease basis of course) as a benefit of
employment (much as health insurance is used as a tool by employers a lot). A good
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:02 MDT