From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2000 - 12:07:08 MDT
>From: GBurch1@aol.com
>
>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?
*I* don't see how they could possibly be bad things. In fact that sort of
surveillance (in my opinion) is certainly coming, and few will complain
about it (except, maybe, for a few cops). But I don't think that level of
surveillance would be enough for a time when almost everyone has the power
and knowledge which will be available to us once GNR tech is in wide use.
The minimalist surveillance you describe would prevent cops from treating
you like a King (Rodney or Martin L.), but would not prevent a Timothy
McVeigh from mixing up a batch of anthrax or assassination bots in his
backyard near-anything device.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:48 MST