ABlainey@aol.com wrote:
>
> This is what on the face of it seems a cut and dry issue. Criminals want
> to hide and the law abiding citizen has no need to fear constant survailence.
> hmmmm....
The problem is that given the current state of government and society is
that 99% of us break a law at least once or twice a week, if not every
day several times. You literally have to be in a coma to not break one
or more government regulations through the course of your day, and its
only getting worse, not better. The same sort of people who are
screaming for ubiquitous surveillance are also the sort of people who
are always saying "there should be a law against this or that behavior".
They are incessant busybodies who think people are no damn good and need
to be told what to do for their own good. I would not mind ubiquitous
surveillance at all if there were only, say, TEN laws in existence, and
if it were a widespread cultural more that anything else a person does
is no damn business of yours.
>
> Im not convinced either way. I have been thinking about Transparency in
> one form another for several years and my viewpoint has swayed from For to
> Against many times.
> My current mindset is that in general survailence is primarily good, but
> I still have reservations. I would like the peace of mind that if we are
> under constant scrutiny that this will in someway make me feel safer. Why
> would i need to worry about being mugged if a potentail assailent knew his
> actions would be monitored and therefor he has a high risk of being caught.
> He is likely not to bother as the risk will be too great. likewise
> Burgulars,Car Theives and many other criminals. But then there is still the
> "Complete Nutter" who would happily stab you if front of 1000 people so
> survailence is not likey to stop this breed of people.
THey are likely to use a surveillance system to track you down as well.
> I know for sure that In certain circumstances I would not like my every
> move to be monitored. I don't like the idea that survailence monitoring
> personel might be sitting there laughing and calling over their colegues to
> watch me scratch my arse or worse !. Or that a tape of my actions could be
> circulating giving people a good laugh.
> I can see that with out a doubt the system will be missused. Im sure that
> market researchers would pay the earth to monitor consumer and really see
> what Joe average gets up to in his everyday life.
If the surveillance system protecting me belongs to me, is under my
control, is automated AI that recognises threats and dangers to me and
my family, and is not penetrable by outside individuals, then I have no
trouble with it, as it is a private security/surveillance system.
>
> On a slightly different note but very related. One thing I have thought
> about considerably is the Tagging of the general population. By this you have
> probably guessed I mean Subcutanious Data transmitters giving the identity
> and location of any individual.
Currently undergoing proof of concept trials with the dogs in your
community (which is also meant to get the economies of scale up enough
so there can be no economic objections to adopting it for people). Next
will be your kids getting them 'for their own protection'. Then old
people will get them as a condition of living in retirement communities,
then large corporate employers will require them as a security badge....
Don't worry folks, Harry Tuttle (of Brazil fame) here to help free you
from the system...
> I can see Incredible potential for devices like these. Imagine a scenario
> where someone is lost in mountainous terrain, Under an avalanche, at sea, in
> the desert, missing children etc etc . No doubt if this system was ever
> developed the data would be saved, this would be an exceptional crime
> fighting tool. No more false allabies. You could keep constant track off
> prisoners and people on parole. Obviously these devices could be tampered
> with or removed so doing either would probably be a criminal offence.
Yup, you get arrested and while you are in jail they drug you and
implant a chip with the incriminating evidence on it...
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:06 MDT