Randy Smith wrote:
> >From: Spike Jones <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: law enforcement for profit
> >Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 21:56:46 -0700
> >Im interested in how the cryonics crowd will see this red light camera
> I like it. Cameras are truth. Truth is good. There are complications to
> everything of course, but the core issue remains.
> The more cameras the better.
Ug Ug. Bog
What is the purpose? What is the aim? Here we have a classic example of
liberty in a quantum context, and an attempt to violate quantum
uncertainty. If a person runs a red light, and nobody witnesses it, was
a law broken?
Then you have the exteralities question: by forcing people to stay idle
at intersections where there is NO other traffic in either direction for
as far as the eye can see, you are a) forcing people to pay for more gas
consumption, and b) wasting their time which could be used in a
productive manner. So then it becomes the Clash Question: Should I stay
or should I go now? It's gonna cost me more money either way because the
government wants to get more fascist.
Then comes the question of capriciousness: If the city only installs
cameras in certain intersections and not in others, you are dealing with
a case of capricious enforcement, especially the criteria for placement
is revinue generation and not law enforcement. Such a situation is no
different from a cop only enforcing the law if he's gonna make a buck on
the deal... this is corrupt law enforcement, so no, cameras are not
I agree with Vernor Vinge's conclusions in _A Deepness in the Sky_ that
ubiquitous surveillance is a contributing factor to the dissolution of
civilizations. A human being cannot deal with being cooped up in the
same surveillance state for their entire lives. They will resent it, and
unless you treat everyone like they live in prison, you will get revolt
and revolution in short order.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:28 MDT