Because next thing you know it will be used to automatically track
the comings and goings of targeted noncriminal individuals. Stakeouts
are manpower intensive. Not anymore--set up one of these doohickeys,
or several, near the target area--and automatically record and ID
everyone who comes and goes. Their faces will already be on record
from drivers licenses. Set 'em up outside porno shops, see who
visits. Outside areas where political rallies are held. At major
intersections. Track everyone, everywhere, all the time--
automatically. Then just punch in a name and see where he's been for
the past ten years.
I'd call those tactics a real problem.
jm
On 1 Feb 2001, at 15:03, Chris Russo wrote:
> Why is the technology at fault or the tactic of using the
technology
> in a public place? Maybe if the technology got a few more
criminals
> off the streets, the odds of your looking like one of them would be
> reduced.
>
> >I found the original article to be somewhat
> >we-try-hard-to-be-objective-although-naturally-we're-not-ish, so here is a
> >link to another article on this issue - a bit better from my point of view:
> >
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16561.html
>
> Ugh, but The Register's
> all-corporations-and-governments-are-out-to-screw-you point of view
> is more objective? :)
>
> For example:
> >Everyone entering Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida last
> >Sunday was subjected to the surveillance system cameras, set up at
> >the entrance turnstiles. No notice or disclosure was ever given, and
> >no one, therefore, had an opportunity to decline to enter the
> >stadium if they should have objected to this unprecedented treatment.
>
> Why would having extra security at a big event like the Super Bowl be
> a reason to give notice? Were they doing brain scans or illegally
> tapping cell phones or something? Would having extra officers there
> have been a reason to give notice? Of course not.
>
>
> and:
> >'Similar or matching.' This clearly acknowledges the possibility
> >that innocent civilians going about their peaceable business may be
> >stopped, hassled, even arrested, merely for resembling someone
> >naughty. This raises sticky issues regarding the presumption of
> >innocence many of us were encouraged to believe in during our
> >grammar-school civics lessons. Is there a violation of this
> >principle when a person is required to produce evidence that they
> >are not, in fact, the evil bastard whom they unfortunately resemble?
>
> This is a problem in the non-technological law enforcement world as
> well. It's unfortunate, but mistakes in identity happen. The police
> in such situations have a responsibility to treat suspects with
> respect and to ascertain their true identity as quickly as possible.
> Why is the technology at fault or the tactic of using the technology
> in a public place? Maybe if the technology got a few more criminals
> off the streets, the odds of your looking like one of them would be
> reduced.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Russo
> --
> "If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought
> or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet
> hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance
> which does harm."
> -- Marcus Aurelius, MEDITATIONS, VI, 21
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT