From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 21:01:41 MDT
>From: "Billy Brown" <bbrown@transcient.com>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> > If I have a micro-camera that I wear all the time (much like the L.A.
>County
> > Sherriffs), and you invite me into your private spaces, is that
>government
> > surveillance? Now say 20% of the population wears the same kind of
>device.
> > Heck it becomes so handy to vid-conference with friends and family
>whenever
> > you get the whim, imagine that everyone who now carries a cell phone
> > everywhere they go, trades in the cell phone for a micro-cell-cam. Now
> > everyone you talk to, everywhere you go is potentially recording
> > everything you say and do.
> >
> > Looky there Big Brother didn't even have to lift a finger to do it, and
>you
> > can't blame him when every lie you ever tell ends up on America's
>Funniest
> > Home Videos!!
>
>You'll note that I recently pointed out that very possibility (well,
>inevitability, actually) in a recent post.
>
>However, this does not get you the 'transparent' society you wanted.
Funny, I don't ever remember describing the kind of transparent society I
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.
>
>Also, there are problems with using the recordings as evidence. Without a
>central database it takes real effort to figure out who might have a
>recording you want, find them, find out what they actually have, persuade
>them to let you see it, figure out if it is real footage or something that
>was faked up, etc. The net effect is not a transparent society, but simply
>one in which it is hard to lie convincingly about what you did in public.
There is no question that a completely transparent society would be near
impossible to implement *now*. However, all the obstacles you mention are
dependent upon present-day public attitudes and present-day technology.
Both of these are rapidly changing, even exponentially so. So when you tell
me that ubiquitous surveillance won't happen *in the future* I simply don't
believe it. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:26 MST