From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 16:52:06 MDT
Charles Hixson wrote:
>On Saturday 07 September 2002 11:05, spike66 wrote:
>...
>
>>Surely we will eventually be ashamed of ourselves: we had the
>>technology way back in the late 20th century to put webcams
>>everywhere in public places, but didn't do it. Who knows how
>>many crimes went unsolved and how many innocents punished
>>because of our insistence on personal privacy and overreliance
>>on outdated traditional legal systems. spike
>>
>
>My, you really *trust* the government.
>
Who said anything about government?
We use the webcams, private property in the hands of private
citizens, to collect the information needed to bag the perps.
The difference is, there is an increased chance of getting the
real perps. Of course, the government does supply the cops,
so perhaps that is what you meant.
Another way to sell this notion is to point out that improved
mechanization of surveillance is to the advantage of minority
groups in general. Since witnesses have a more difficult time
distinguishing between dark-complexion suspects, for instance,
there is a greater risk of innocent persons with dark complexion
becoming wrongly accused and jailed. If the suspect is Chinese,
for instance, the Chinese have less genetic variation than the
Europeans and thus it becomes more difficult to ensure we
bag the right man. There are some visual clues missing with
darker suspects, such as hair color. Improved surveillance
helps minorities.
Of course, improved surveillance is certainly a disadvantage
to those who really are pulling off crimes. But if it is the
case that arrests are made on differentially large percentages
of minorities, perhaps because of racial profiling, then improved
surveillance techniques are even more advantageous to dark
complexion minorities.
Furthermore, improved surveillance is to the advantage of
the poor, for innocent poor people are more likely to be falsely
accused, simply because they have the misfortune of being
more likely to be in the neighborhood where a crime is
committed. Still more obvious, if the surveillance successfully
bags the right guy, the poor have their own neighborhoods
cleansed of the yahoos doing the crime. This is a win-win
for the innocent.
So why aren't we doing it?
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:51 MST