Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> > >
> > > >Now, lets assume that another bombing has occured. Mr. Powers happens
> > > >a) have a deisel tractor (and a fuel tank to keep it fuelled), b) be a
> > > >farmer, so he has a lot of fertilizer, c) be an electronics hobbyist,
> > > >and enjoy making remote control devices, d) be known to have made up
> > > >explosives in the past and used them on his private property simply for
> > > >the purpose of clearing stumps (as is the case with thousands of
> > > >and other property owners all over the country), e) have in the past
> > > >written letters to the editor of his local paper decrying the
> > > >of an organization or government agency that happened to have had
> > > >offices or facilities at the site of the bombing, f) have been stopped
> > > >for a traffic violation on the day of the bombing within 20 miles of
> > > >bombing location. Under the rules of evidence and the prosecutorial
> > > >procedure used in the Oklahoma case, its is pretty much an open and
> > > >case that Mr. Powers is the bomber in this event. No eyewitnesses are
> > > >needed to place him on the scene at the time of the bombing, no
> > > >eyewitnesses are needed to prove that he actually made the bomb.
> > > >
> > > >This IS how justice gets done today in America.
> > >
> > > OK, lets assume all that. Now, lets *also* assume I was fortunate
> >enough to
> > > live in a tranparent society. I would submit the video record of my
> > > during the few days leading up to the bombing and viola! instant
> > > allibi! I'm not only *not* convicted, I'm not even charged! After a
> > > minutes of interrogation, the whole ordeal for me is over for good. "Oh
> > > horrors of transparency", eh?
> >Thats not Transparent society, that is private serveillance. Not the
> >same. Besides that, it would not take the government much work to
> >'prove' that your coverage was faked.
> 1. There is nothing that requires a "transparent society" to consist of
> government-only surveillance. My preference would be for *everyone* to
> conduct their own surveillance which could be verified, if necessary, by
> anyone else's surveillance.
> 2. You are *assuming* that when I said "I would submit the video record of
> my life" that I meant my own private recordings. That is not necessarily
> what I meant. As you suggest, it would be even that much better for me if
> the video record had been created and/or maintained by the Government. That
> would take away the one possible problem for me: the claim that I had
> altered the record. If the government had its own copy (and assuming it
> showed the same thing as my copy) then my life is even easier.
Assuming.... you tend to make a lot of assumptions...
> Of course if I was the actual bomber the last thing in the world I'd want is
> for a mutually verifiable accurate record of my doings. Which goes back to
> my main argument: that honest folk have much more to gain, and much less to
> fear, from a transparent society. You, by your own hypothetical, have made
> this point for me as eloquently as I could ever hope to. Thanks.
If you think that a transparent society, with the government we have,
would actually benefit you, you are sadly mistaken. First thing that
would happen would be that any exculpatory evidence would be seized by
the police. THen it would either dissapear, or be substituted with
finely counterfeited evidence that incriminates you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:11 MDT