From: hal@finney.org
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 12:10:36 MST
T0M writes:
> While I found many of Hal's comments about surveillance of public spaces
> plausible, I don't think it follows that drug smuggling and sales will
> suffer inordinately. The packing and unpacking of containers hiding drugs
> can take place in private spaces--places like homes and offices--which
> Hal's analysis treats as not subject to the sort of surveillance he foresees
> for public spaces. For similar reasons, many sorts of drug transactions
> can continue, so long as they move indoors.
Yes, this is possible. I suppose the drugs are packaged in ordinary
looking boxes and suitcases and such.
It does seem that surveillance could still be very helpful to law
enforcement. The increase in customer traffic in and out of drug
houses might be enough to justify a warrant. Or, once a house had been
identified as a target in this way, police could trace back deliveries
to the house and see if they came from suspicious places. Then, once
a dealer had been caught, the police would have information on who his
customers had been so they could try to target them as well. Also,
the existence of cameras would make it harder for police to be bribed
to look the other way, which I think must be a common occurance today.
All these factors would make the drug business considerably riskier and
more difficult than it is today.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:37 MST