Billy Brown writes:
> However, this does not get you the 'transparent' society you wanted. It
> doesn't help the government catch pot smokers, or sexual perverts, or anyone
> else whos 'crimes' are consensual. Real criminal will not film themselves,
> and they will break or steal private surveillance systems when they can.
> Criminal conspiracies won't keep recordings for you either, unless they are
> especially stupid. The list of wholes in the system goes on and on.
I don't see how people can speak pro ubiquitous snoopware, without
realizing how much information can be extracted from multiple,
seemingly bland data sources by crosscorellation, especially if over a
certain threshold. I'm not in the know in what extent data warehousing
is currently already being utilized by security, whether fed or
otherwise, but I'll bet it's a huge growth market.
The surveillance technology chillingly depicted in The Deepness In The
Sky is not very far of, even without Focus (a fair likeness of which
can be probably engineered, as well). Realtime surveillance tightly
coupled to legislative and executive (especially, if combined in one
entity) is a very deep local minimum. Once you're there, you'll have
very hard time escaping from there. So, please, don't try to get there
deliberately, dragging us all into it.
Anyone proposing an Open Society is IMO at least criminally negligent,
if not outright evil.
Most of list subscribers probably don't understand the mechanics and
the scope of control present in totalitarian states, not having lived
in one. Why do you think it can never happen here?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:30 MDT