From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Wed Sep 11 2002 - 08:41:07 MDT
louisnews Newstrom wrote:
>From: spike66 <spike66@attbi.com>
>
>>If we had enough overlapping timestamped video, the cops
>>could calmly drive to the place where the perp is hiding,
>>scoop up his ass and throw it in the slammer.
>>
>
>But "enough" would have to cover the entire world!
>
RIGHT! Finally, the message is getting thru. Thanks for explaining it
better than I did, Louis.
> Even if the entire
>city was covered with cameras, all a criminal would have to do is drive
>out of the city.
>
If the entire world were covered, this is no problem.
>Only surveillence of every spot on the planet would stop this.
>
Ja. We could do it. Or at least every spot on the planet anyone
cares about. Vast expanses could be left unwatched, as reservations
for the privacy fans who are more tolerant of crime. Criminals
could move there.
>This is not a great return from the expense of putting a camera every 10
>feet on the planet.
>
10 feet? My rough calculation is 4 orders of magnitude different
from this. A grid with cameras spaced at about 200 meters should do
it. Granted there isnt much resolution, but it isnt needed just for
triangulating a location. We could pay for it by reducing police
forces.
They could be placed at 100 meter spacing along freeways. A
side benefit is that there would be no need to establish fault at
an accident site, since it would all be imaged and stored. So
wrecked cars could be moved off to the side, preventing huge
traffic jams as proles now get out with the cars and argue and
trade insurance cards, etc. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:57 MST