Charlie Stross wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 03:24:20PM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> It's being installed today, in the UK, with widespread public
> support. (Not from me, I should like to add.) It's fallible, sure,
> but with the best part of a million surveilance cameras a year being
> installed in public places (and a lot of the monitoring outsourced
> to private companies, and funded by insurance premium reductions)
> it's eminently economically practical. Add the current Regulation of
> Investigatory Powers Bill (with its draconian key-disclosure clauses),
> public paranoia about porn, paedophilia, poor policing, and privacy
> (this is the culture that invented the net curtain, remember) and you
> have a mostly-working prototype of the universal surveilance society.
I'm not surprised that the cradle to grave nanny state is on the forefront of
this. I'm also not surprised that the areas in the US that are jumping on the
bandwagon also have similarly high levels of taxation, welfare bureaucracy,
police forces, and general social misery and oppression.
All this incomplete coverage will do is cause more criminals to commit crimes in
areas that ARENT under coverage. The crime rate in more rural areas will go up,
people will get whacked out on the moors, etc. You'll see a lot of spouses dying
in 'accidents' during camping trips. Boating 'accidents' will rise, and
criminals will get more circumspect about cleaning up crime scenes.
> Any time you want to check out a total surveilance society in the
> embryonic phase, hop on a plane for Heathrow airport. Catch the train
> into London, then get on a double-decker bus. Sit on the top deck, and
> keep your eyes on the buildings -- you need to be looking about ten feet
> above ground level if you want to maximize your camera count. If you're
> feeling particularly dilligent, map your distance travelled and add an
> extra camera for every shop (coverage is over 90% in most shopping areas
> now, and some local authorities won't grant planning permission for a new
> retail development unless it includes CCTV surveilance).
So what you are saying is that Heathrow is a good place to test my Mr. Mike's
Big Brother Zapper...oh, that could be fun....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:00 MDT