GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> I have to confess that I've only been skimming this thread due to the volume,
> but I think I see that the discussion is being carried out about what might
> be a straw man, i.e. the notion of truly UNIVERSAL surveillance. I can't
> help but wonder whether the discussion might be more fruitful if we
> considered more possible scenarios. For instance, what if a community
> decided that all police officers had to have a "shoulder cam" that recorded
> only when that officer was on duty, extending the highway patrol car
> "pull-over" cams that have been in use in new Jersey now for a year or so?
> Or even less intrusive, that courts were to decide that a search or an arrest
> that wasn't recorded was presumptively unconstitutional? Or that an oral
> contract that wasn't recorded was voidable? Could those be bad things?
>
> Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
> Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
> http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
> ICQ # 61112550
> "We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
> enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
> question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
> -- Desmond Morris
I would say it would be a good idea for those that carry guns for government
carry recording devices that were both required to be on when on duty, and that
that data would be just as recorded evidence is now in terms of evidence for
court proceedings, as well as protecting police officers from false accusations
of mistreatment as well as citizens from mistreatment. It would be good as
feasible for it to actually be on all the time, and available to prosecution and
defense to the extents ruled admissable. By and large, I would think that
untampered on-scene recorded evidence would be admissable, if that is spelled
correctly.
I don't think we can say that without recording that arrest was unconstitutional
in the case of some committed crime, but when it comes to two citizens' words
against each other, it shouldn't matter who wears a badge. Constitutional search
requires probable cause which is a gray area which might be more objectively
identified in retrospect.
One thing this leads to in the long run is jurimetrics and computer aided
justice.
One issue that I have is that police reserve power for their application, and
then some forget that it is only theirs due to the license of the public. So,
that is the case of any situation with people and power, some people would abuse
it. So, we can see ways that would be a) beneficial to the citizens be actually
being able to retrieve data recorded of public official's actions, and b)
beneficial to the good police by supporting their statements in court.
I think these reasons are justification for mandatory on-duty monitoring for
police, fire, and emergency personnel.
I see little reason if any why having records of all police activity would be
negative. That is not to say I think it should be necessarily public record, but
anytime that anyone's justice is at issue where data was recorded by the public
safety officer, that data should be available to the concerned parties.
I think that static or remote cameras or other recording devices are not
generally constitutional and should be subject to wiretap rules. So, I guess
that means I think out with automated red-light and radar traps unless there is
actually a police officer there at the intersection.
In a similar vein in terms of data production by the government, we see that the
White House's e-mail fiasco displays a wanton disregard and contempt by that
administration for the American people. I do not now speak further on that, you
can infer my opinion on that.
An oral contract is valid except for real estate. If it goes to court for breach
then it is one party's word and supporting evidence against the other, that is
why people use written contracts unless they trust the other party, I'm no lawyer
so would suggest that no binding arrangement be not written.
It is troubling that the subject of this community discussion includes fascism, I
would like to change it to "Technological Reform and Liberty" or "The Bright
Future of Democracy".
I have begun to write an essay about drug policy, or as it is termed by the
government, "drug control policy." I think I can prove certain economic
realities and how they contradict certain policies. Anyways, that's something
completely different.
It takes a lot of monitoring and review to keep government in line, I would
think, government is by nature expansionist. That is not bad in itself, but it
is when bad people get power and try to expand the government in malicious or
repressive ways that the people should congregate and cast out the offenders.
So, it is a continuous process to keep a government democratic and representative
of its people and even more so to the highest ideals of liberty and freedoms.
Well, thanks for reading. Citizen.
Ross F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:59 MDT