From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 21:08:28 MDT
>
>
>spike66 [mailto:spike66@attbi.com] wrote:
>
>...I want to plug into
>a network of some sort, so that my cam could be used by anyone
>who wants to track the location of anyone who should pass by. spike
>
>Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ### Spike,.. I am an ardent supporter of transparency but
>in the case of web-accessible neighborhood cameras I would be more
>circumspect: the data could be easily used by thieves, etc. to avoid
>detection during e.g. burglary - you could stake out the joint from your
>sofa, and then keep tabs on passing cops and neighbors. You could put on
>masks precisely in the location where you'd need them, or you could use
>make-up to make yourself unrecognizable.
>
Sure, but if the network I am considering comes to pass, the disguises
and the tracking of neighbors and cops would be pointless. The victim
has a continuous timestamped series of photos that can lead directly
to where the perp went, all the way to where he is now, or rather
the last private home into which he fled.
Granted it would take a lot of cameras, which is why I said it is
a project the government could not afford. But enough
citizens could afford it, each pitching in a few hundred bucks
worth of equipment, to protect their own homes and donate
the images to help others protect theirs.
How much is currently invested in home defence? A lot.
>A better approach is to deposit encrypted data in secure locations and open
>it only if you think you should - to help the good guys. Rafal
>
Of course. The key is that with enough privately owned
cameras and digital recording equipment, all of which has
gotten dramatically cheaper in the past few years, there
could be no property crime or violent crime that goes
unsolved. This would be a new world. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:54 MST