From: John Marlow (johnmarlow@gmx.net)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 00:01:14 MST
Nice thought, but I'm afraid not. They'll simply jam the suckers.
jm
On 4 Feb 2001, at 9:07, Spike Jones wrote:
> John Marlow wrote:
>
> > You wanna practice full disclosure? Here's what happened to the likes
> > of David Horowitz,...
> >
> > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/00/40/news-seeley.shtml
>
> This kinda problem is easily solved with a video camera which
> has a transmitter so that the recording device is not on the person
> and so cannot be confiscated. The real trick is to make a standard
> video camera with a transmitter.
>
> After the cops learn of the existence of transmitter cameras that
> look like standard ones, they would be unable to tell the difference
> and wouldnt wanna chance it, so anyone with any camera would
> cause them to play by the rules.
>
> Then the next logical step is a camera too small to be seen.
> Then no one knows who is packing tape. A polite society
> results. Of course it makes one a little squicked when one
> showers in the locker room. But why should it? Why did
> we evolve the instinct to cover our private parts and why
> should we keep that today? spike
>
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:36 MST