This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE27C0.9F643060
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> den Otter [neosapient@geocities.com] wrote:
> >ROTFL. Right, of course a sentient witness *can* be trusted.
>
> Uh-huh... and when exactly did I say that they could? No, I didn't say
> that, did I, actually? I said that non-sentient witnesses couldn't be
> trusted.
Yes, but unless you want to abolish the justice system alltogether, or at least want to remove the "witness factor" and fully rely on foresics instead, this implies that you'd rather use "sentient" witnesses (i.e. humans, as cats and dogs have too much trouble with formulating their testimony) instead of things like camera systems.
Yet people like you would throw out a hundred witness statements
> if you had a faked video which showed a fake crime.
I'd certainly trust a video (or multiple videos) as provided by the proposed surveillance system over any human witness, yes. Absolutely. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't pay any attention to (eye)witnisses, certainly not if a hundred (apparently unrelated) people claim x why the camera shows y. No information should ever be discarded in a case, but this doesn't change the fact that in the great majority of cases cameras and microphones are more reliable than people.
> >In other words, no matter how flawed automated (video) surveillance
> >may be,
>
> In the last year or so, I've had my photo taken by one red-light
> camera while driving through a green light, and two speed-cameras while
> driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit. Living in an authoritarian
surveillance
> state I have a very different opinion on the infallibility of automated
> systems; luckily either those cameras were out of film or some sentient
> worked out that they were fucked up, otherwise I'd have lost my driving
> license without commiting any crime.
Traffic cams are certainly far from perfect, but this is irrelevant as trying to measure speed and simply recording all the activity in a certain area are two completely different things.
For good measure: the surveillance system is part of a much
larger reform package which is roughly based on a fusion of
the Golden Rule and "an eye for an eye". It is not intended
to harvest more traffic tickets and other such nonsense,
though some people would no doubt (want to) use it for that.
The system, like a gun or a car, is not inherently bad as
you seem to belief; it's simply a tool to get a better grip on
what's going on.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE27C0.9F643060
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
----------
> From: mark@unicorn.com
> den Otter [neosapient@geocities.com] wrote:
> >ROTFL. Right, of course a =
sentient witness *can* be trusted.
>
> Uh-huh... and when =
exactly did I say that they could? No, I didn't say
> that, did =
I, actually? I said that non-sentient witnesses couldn't be
> =
trusted.
Yes, but unless you want to abolish the justice system =
alltogether,
or at least want to remove the "witness =
factor" and fully rely on
foresics instead, this implies that =
you'd rather use "sentient"
witnesses (i.e. humans, as =
cats and dogs have too much trouble
with formulating their =
testimony) instead of things like camera
systems.
Yet people =
like you would throw out a hundred witness statements
> if you =
had a faked video which showed a fake crime.
I'd certainly trust =
a video (or multiple videos) as provided by the
proposed =
surveillance system over any human witness, yes.
Absolutely. This =
doesn't mean that I wouldn't pay any attention
to (eye)witnisses, =
certainly not if a hundred (apparently unrelated)
people claim x why =
the camera shows y. No information should
ever be discarded in a =
case, but this doesn't change the fact that
in the great majority of =
cases cameras and microphones are more
reliable than people.
=
> >In other words, no matter how flawed automated (video) =
surveillance
> >may be,
>
> In the last year or =
so, I've had my photo taken by one red-light
> camera while =
driving through a green light, and two speed-cameras while
> =
driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit. Living in an authoritarian =
surveillance
> state I have a very different opinion on the =
infallibility of automated
> systems; luckily either those cameras =
were out of film or some sentient
> worked out that they were =
fucked up, otherwise I'd have lost my driving
> license without =
commiting any crime.
Traffic cams are certainly far from perfect, =
but this is irrelevant as
trying to measure speed and simply =
recording all the activity in
a certain area are two completely =
different things.
For good measure: the surveillance system is =
part of a much
larger reform package which is roughly based on a =
fusion of
the Golden Rule and "an eye for an eye". It is =
not intended
to harvest more traffic tickets and other such nonsense, =
though some people would no doubt (want to) use it for that.
The =
system, like a gun or a car, is not inherently bad as
you seem to =
belief; it's simply a tool to get a better grip on
what's going =
on.