From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 12:12:03 MST
Michael M. Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:12:19 -0800, spike66 <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Such a thing already exists, or can be easily modified
>> from cheap commercially available wireless cameras, such
>> as those x10 things you can find for less than 100 bucks
>> at Fry's...
>
>> The picture isn't great, but good enough for the purpose
>> of protecting oneself from false accusations at a rally...
>
> I disagree. This is not robust, it is not distant, and it has no backup.
> It's a baby step in the direction of what I am talking about...
I agree the x10 isn't a great solution, but I would
still urge those who attend a rally to get one and
hang it somewhere on your clothing, even if it isnt
doing anything. The cops don't know what you are
up to, and if they arrest you with a transmitting cam,
they dont know who has received the signals, they
dont know if they managed to apprehend the receiver.
I suspect the cops and protesters would behave
themselves much better with this nagging uncertainty.
Remember that incident from the 60s where the cops water-
cannoned a civil rights marcher? That one piece of
film has been seen by jillions of people, it has been
shown countless times on TV. It has likely had more
impact on civil rights than all the speeches that were
ever made. Visual images have enormous impact, they
have power, everyone understands. If the cops and the
protestors all knew that any inappropriate or violent
misbehavior might be the next great sight bite for
decades, then civil protests would be so much more
civil. Everyone wins this time.
spike
ps: Well, almost everyone wins. If it is a march to
protest universal transparency, Im not sure how it
would work in that case. {8^D
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 12:19:08 MST