"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > >
> > >Since the powerful will have greater computational resources, they will
> > >be able to make better use of the intelligence value of this ubiquitous
> > >surveillance, so even if everyone has the same 'access' (or even if the
> > >powerful have 'less' access, they will still make better use of the data
> > >and will be able to oppress people more as a result. Surveillance is
> > >merely an intelligence gathering channel. Its value is directly related
> > >to how much you can process in a given amount of time, and how much
> > >useless data you can filter out. Unless you are going to mandate that
> > >everyone have exactly the same amount of computing power, no more, no
> > >less, then your scheme cannot work as you envision it, and it will
> > >become a tool of repression for the powerful.
> >
> > Once again, not really. It doesn't take much computing power at all to
> > browse an efficiently designed and frequently updated database. Each
> > citizen would not have to bear the onerous burden of creating and
> > maintaining their own database. The database would be publicly maintained
> > (of course under the glare of a great deal of transparency). When I wanted
> > the info, I'd just cruise on over to the database, log in and have a look
> > around. Not much different than what happens now when you go to google.com.
> > I would not have much advantage using a 1ghz Pentium III over somebody
> > using a 66mhz 486 in browsing such a database.
>
> You obviously do not comprehend the scope of the problem at hand. We are
> talking the ability to monitor and filter the input of MILLIONS of
> cameras, giving real=time output of deeds being done. The computer that
> can do that has not been built yet, and when it is YOU won't the first
> person to get one, it will be the government and the big corporations.
Let me amend myself. Assuming this is a worldwide system, you are talking a
minimum of 100 - 500 billion cameras. Zero's Pentium III is capable of filtering
the input of between 1-6 such cameras. So Zero would not have the same processing
capability of, say, IBM, which could filter the input of maybe a few million
cameras. Keep in mind that each camera will also have to have a built in video
server (to ensure that the video feed isn't being altered in transit), and a
router capable of handling terabytes of bandwidth, at a minimum, due to download
requests from over 6 billion people. We are not talking little consumer web-cams
here.
Total open ubiquitous surveillance is not only technically impossible, unless you
create a techno-socialist state that says each person can only have the same
processing capability of anyone else, and that individuals cannot collaborate on
distributed processing projects, then it is also not equal either. The powerful
will always find such systems to be of more use for maintaining power and
supporting oppression than the average person will find it for supporting freedom.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:42 MDT