From: Spike Jones (spike66@ibm.net)
Date: Sun May 21 2000 - 17:42:14 MDT
> spike:
> > With big business we have the collective option of just saying
> > no, or just saying less. And we MUST exercise that option.
>
> Michael S. Lorrey wrote: Lets say a community sets up a surveillance net,
> even a competetive one, where every stoplight, every intersection, every
> public area has cameras where private businesses can bid to maintain and
> use them to enforce whatever laws the community wants to contract them
> to enforce. How is the business to make money? Why, they make the most
> money by writing the most citations.
But remember the enforcement businesses are bidding to create the
largest amount of societal order and safety at the lowest cost, and
you and I are the customer now. The point of this whole exercise
is to *reinforce* the notion that the *government is here to serve us*
not the other way around. We must constantly reinforce that concept,
since it slips away otherwise, and we become a society of slaves.
If a private security company gets overzealous, then the citizenry
decides to demand lower fines for minor infractions. If murder is
being perpetrated without the perps being caught, more security
is demanded. An equilibrium is established.
> I'd rather see it become a non-profit decentralized volunteer effort, a
> sort of digital neighborhood watch.
Ill buy it, Mike. But Im a little surprised (and pleased) to see such
a suggestion coming from you. {8^D
Palo Alto essentially has such a system now. And as you might
expect, there isnt much crime there. Regardless of how we vote,
such systems will spontaneously arise, for surveillance equipment
is cheap and small. My 80 dollar wireless camera is already out
of date, being 5 weeks old and all. This week the 80 dollar model
gives you and infrared sensors and motion detectors.
So what will happen when cameras are the size of marbles and
cost 20 bucks? Or the size of a BB and costs 5? How soon
do you suppose that will be?
> Conditions of no risk should follow the no harm, no foul rule.
Agree.
> When they do all their calculations off the same
> tables, and every insurance company is re-insured by the same
> reinsurance syndicate, where do you get lower rates?
Competitors would seek profit niches by using proprietary
risk tables. Example: those companies that specialize in
motorcycle insurance. Some years ago they established
almost zero correllation between risk and engine size. They
ate the big guy's lunch.
> here's an example: Once, several years ago, for about 6 months, I drove
> around with no license.
Why you rebel child you. {8^D Not that *I* would ever do
such a thing...
> Capping what they can make will limit the enthusiasm
> with which they will engage in law enforcement, but will result in a
> large roving population of law enforcers at any given time.
>
> What do you think?
I dont know Mike, heres a lot of material in this post that I need
to think over. Now I gotta run, out to Palo Alto to the nano/extro
schmooze. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:44 MST