> All privacy *really will* be lost, and it
> >isnt at all clear to me how one would defend against it without
> >spending buttloads of money, an option closed to the poor. spike
>
> Zero Powers wrote: I am not anxiously looking forward to *that* level of
> surveillance. It may or may not become ubiquitous. But if it does, me
> thinks the best defense will be to live a life that you would not be ashamed
> to have broadcast to the world.
Sure, but consider the group most likely to be impacted. Not movie, TV
and rock stars, for they are already under constant watch by
multiple photographers and groupies, and they can afford to defeat
the watcher's technology. The group I have in mind for most impact is
college students. Being watched by other college students. I dont know
about you, but when I was in college I was doing good to afford food,
never mind sophisticated antisurveillance tech.
This camera thing is a lot like guns in many ways. They really cannot
be outlawed. If they outlaw cameras, only outlaws will have cameras.
They are getting steadily smaller and cheaper. They can be used for
good or evil, and you can bet they will be used for both. Criminals
are toast. But perhaps so are we, if we really want *assurance* that
no one is watching us in our bedrooms.
So far I have taken the stance that our attitudes do not matter much.
Surveillance is coming anyway. I still think that. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:52 MDT