From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Oct 17 2002 - 12:32:13 MDT
spike66 wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wonder when this system will come to Virginia. If we had it now, the
>>> Virginia sniper would hardly even make it into national news - he
>>> would have been caught after the first shooting.
>>
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that a system allowing you to obtain
>> complete
>> trajectories and fingerprints of all moving objects on a 24/7/365 manner
>> in realtime something that is bound to be abused, and abused horribly?
>> Think of all the pattern matching and crosscorellation analysis you
>> could do with that data. <SHUDDER>
>
>
> What is it that you dread, Gene? Abused by who?
> The government? As before, I presupposed you would
> compensate away much of the government's power as
> transparency increased. This is a critical point.
> No government can be trusted with the power that
> transparency would provide.
How would you "compensate away the power" and how would you keep
other dangerous concentrations of power from arising and abusing
the system?
>> Technology is an asymmetrical enabler, since favouring centralism. Why
>> giving up privacy, which is irreversible, in face of statistically
>> insignificant threats? The mind boggles.
>
>
> I think of them as statistically significant opportunities.
> I like asymmetrical enablers. I tend to be on the side that
> is always asymmetrically enabled. spike
>
Except you have no means you have disclosed of insuring that it
is symmetrical.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:38 MST