Re: Surveilance was: Transhuman fascists?

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Sun Apr 02 2000 - 13:24:20 MDT

Cynthia wrote:
> > Hardly. You are falsely assuming that *everyone* will willingly wear
> > these nannybots, especially criminals or former criminals, or those with
> > criminal intent.
> If I record all my own activities, then I have hard evidence that I can use
> anytime I choose. If I am accused of a crime, I have records to prove that I
> was at home sleeping. And if I get attacked, then I have evidence I can use
> against my attacker. So it doesn't matter if the criminal types wear one at
> all.

And If I am your attacker, all I need is Mike's handy cam zapper to fry
your electronics. Now you have no record, evidence, whatever. If your
body cam is not automatically transmitting your video to a storage
device elsewhere (by a method I cannot interfere with using easy to
build devices made from radio shack components), then all I need to do
is take your bodycam/computer, smash it to itty bitty smithereens, and
melt them down to slag. No more evidence. If there is no overall total
surveillance system in the area that I am attacking you, and there are
no other people present, then there is absolutely no record of the
attack, you are dead, and your happy happy joy joy, good good feelings
world has come to an end, and proved worthless in protecting you.

if I can think of these ways around your bodycam 'security' system, then
there will be millions of criminals around the world who can also think
of these things.

This is why I state that such technology is USELESS without an overall
total surveillance system that covers the entire surface of the earth.
Without a Big Brother syste, the alleged increase in crime fighting that
surveillance provides is ephemeral, or easily countered.

> > You run into the same conundrum of the gun control people (which is not
> > surprising, since you seem to have the same mental failings with regard
> > to that issue as well) who falsely assume that those who are criminals
> > or who have criminal intent will obey all gun control laws.
> Do you really think gun control advocates believe that?

Why else would they advocate the passage of laws that merely limit the
rights of law abiding citizens when there are already over 20,000 gun
control laws on the books that they don't enforce as it is?? The boys at
Columbine broke 18 or 19 laws when they did what they did. What makes
you think that a 20th or 21st would have kept them from doing what they
wanted to do? Outlaws are outlaws, by definition, because they have a
total disregard for the law. Making more laws for them to disregard is
not going to keep them from breaking the ones they already broke.

What LaPierre of the NRA said about Clinton's need for some amount of
violence to further his agenda was rude, crude, but totally correct and
on target. If gun controllers really wanted to eliminate gun related
violence, they would focus on making sure that law enforcment and
prosecutors convicted every single weapons violator they caught.
Instead, weapons charges are, in the overwhelming number of cases, the
first charge that gets tossed when the plea bargaining starts.

Considering that people like Sarah Brady (who was a closet socialist up
until the last ten years) have been caught in the last few years openly
stating that their goal is the total elimination of all guns to make the
imposition of socialist world government easier (and which is supported
by the existence of the current UN Campaign Against Small Arms, which
seeks to eliminate the private ownership of all small arms in the world,
including here in the US), and other renowned anti-gunners like Ted
Turner regularly communicate with and consort with people like Fidel
Castro, its becoming pretty clear that the whole purpose of the gun
control movement, coupled with the lax enforcement of gun laws is a low
level application of the classic ChiCom strategies for generating
vicious cycles of violence and opression, leading up to the populace
begging to have its civil rights confiscated by a totalitarian group.

As for ubiquitous surveillance, the major media has not started to
trumpet that yet, because it still needs to wait for the NEA to get the
literacy level down low enough that only a minority of the population
can still understand the warnings of people like Orwell, and most of the
literate people will be the nomenklatura/intelligentsia anyways, and
will be for it. Once they get on the band wagon though, don't expect
open mutual systems like what Zero describes, because the feds will make
sure that there is plenty of publicity for cases where perpetrators
corrupted their victims surveillance systems and turn it against them,
so the feds can demonstrate that 'civilians' are not responsibly enough
to handle the system, that big government needs to take control of the

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:08:59 MDT