James Rogers wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2000, Spike Jones wrote:
> > Regarding controversial topics, there was a show on Discovery regarding
> > surveillance camera tech. It was in the most libertarian, low tax
> > state in the U.S., Nevada, in the casinos. Im surprised none of
> > us thought of it: its perfect. With buttloads of untraceable money
> > floating around all over the place and being a thief magnet as well
> > as a strange attractor for every amateur card shark and trickster,
> > the casinos have every reason to buy all the latest and greatest high
> > tech surveillance gear, face recognition software, rooms filled floor
> > to ceiling with banks of whirring VCRs recording every wink and twitch.
> > And best of all, it has no Orwell angle: its all voluntary. No one forces
> > anyone to go into a casino. They had some wicked cool stuff there.
I don't have any problem with anyone having as much surveillance
equipment on their own private property as they feel they need (its when
it goes on my private property, or views my private property, that I get
fussy). However I do think that they are a bit unfair in their
exclusion of individuals who are skilled winning gamblers. Being able to
count cards is no great feat, its something that many people can learn,
and its no different a gaming strategy than picking your favority color
or going by your wifes and kids birthdays on the lottery or in roulette
(though more successful on average). I can imagine that there will come
a day when they will exclude all augmented individuals. I'd like to be
the one bringing them to court and getting them to admit that their
games are intended for suckers and dimwits, and with our augmentations
we are incapable of being such.
> It should also be noted that Nevada has very strict privacy
> laws that are actually fairly "anti-big brother". It is generally known
> that the State of Nevada will not disclose many of the records it collects
> to the Federal government, and Federal regulatory agencies in particular
> (such as the IRS). Since federal regulatory agencies do not have any
> particular constitutional authority to demand such access, this is often
> used as a roadblock to keep things out of Federal hands (you see signs
> on buildings here that state that federal agents must have a
> detailed federal warrant AND be accompanied by the local sheriff or their
> requests will not be honored).
I'm getting to like Nevada more and more, and just wish that there was
someplace in the state that remained relatively cool in the summer. My
body just doesn't beleive in the old 'but its a dry heat' claim...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:25 MDT