Zero Powers wrote:
> If I have a micro-camera that I wear all the time (much like the L.A.
County
> Sherriffs), and you invite me into your private spaces, is that government
> surveillance? Now say 20% of the population wears the same kind of
device.
> Heck it becomes so handy to vid-conference with friends and family
whenever
> you get the whim, imagine that everyone who now carries a cell phone
> everywhere they go, trades in the cell phone for a micro-cell-cam. Now
> everyone you talk to, everywhere you go is potentially recording
> everything you say and do.
>
> Looky there Big Brother didn't even have to lift a finger to do it, and
you
> can't blame him when every lie you ever tell ends up on America's Funniest
> Home Videos!!
You'll note that I recently pointed out that very possibility (well,
inevitability, actually) in a recent post.
However, this does not get you the 'transparent' society you wanted. It
doesn't help the government catch pot smokers, or sexual perverts, or anyone
else whos 'crimes' are consensual. Real criminal will not film themselves,
and they will break or steal private surveillance systems when they can.
Criminal conspiracies won't keep recordings for you either, unless they are
especially stupid. The list of wholes in the system goes on and on.
Also, there are problems with using the recordings as evidence. Without a
central database it takes real effort to figure out who might have a
recording you want, find them, find out what they actually have, persuade
them to let you see it, figure out if it is real footage or something that
was faked up, etc. The net effect is not a transparent society, but simply
one in which it is hard to lie convincingly about what you did in public.
Billy Brown
bbrown@transcient.com
http://www.transcient.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:30 MDT