From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2000 - 12:54:43 MDT
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?
Aytime you have a meeting between a person who has a whole lot more
power than the other, and is intent on using it, it behooves the
interests of liberty to ensure that that interaction is just. Similarly,
recording contract discussions, or at least contract signing meetigns,
are useful, however there is the problem of allowing the courts or
participating parties to the contract getting the wording of a contract
modified after the fact based on the recording, even though they had
previously reviewed the contract and agreed to its provisions.
And I don't think that truly universal surveillance is a straw man.
Without truly universal coverage, the purported benefits of the system
for fighting crime are greatly diminished, and I don't see the point of
creating such a system and such a confiscation of human rights unless
these benefits are secured. Without the full benefits, the cost-benefit
of the liberty-security transfer is not to the advantage of the
individual.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:48 MST