Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Billy Brown" <email@example.com>
> >However, since in actual fact about 99% of the population is adamantly
> >opposed to government surveillance of private spaces, the only way you can
> >have transparency is by erecting an authoritarian state charged with
> >installing the surveillance system at gunpoint. If you do that, you've
> >already lost your freedom, and the odds that the state will give it back
> >just about zero.
> 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.
Unless your feed is going into a public server, then its no big deal. I
would be surprised though, if most people wouldn't ask you to turn the
camera off in their house. Inviting you into their home should not
involve you bringing half the rest of the human race with you, an
extremely rude and inhospitable thing to do. Try that at my house and
you'll be left on the porch. Get obstinate about it, and I may feed that
camera to you....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:31 MDT