From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sun Sep 08 2002 - 20:33:39 MDT
>
>
>Spike66 wrote:
>
>>If we develop the tech to bag any crime that can be
>>recognized from an external view, such as robbery,
>>murder, mugging, rape, etc, then poor neighborhoods
>>could be cleansed of these plagues. If they were, the
>>rents would skyrocket, displacing the poor...
>>
>
>gts wrote: While I do not in principle endorse increased gov't surveillance...
>
Roger that. The government could not afford what I have in mind
anyway, which is all privately-owned surveillance infrastructure.
>Should it come to pass: wealthy localities will be the first to
>implement such hi-tech surveillance because they are most able to afford it.
>
It has already come to pass. Palo Alto is wealthy, it has a great deal
of privately owned surveillance equipment in place. But there is seldom
anything to watch there, they have so many cops per square inch the
perps go elsewhere.
> This will increase the gap in rents between wealthy neighborhoods
>and poor neighborhoods in favor of wealthy neighborhoods.
>
Right but remember, in Palo Alto almost no one rents. That place is
for owners. In nearby East Palo Alto, nearly everyone rents.
>The poor
>will be able to pay those new higher rents because they will, like the
>rich, have higher real incomes then as a result of the reduction in
>crime. -gts
>
OK, I follow your argument and I want to agree. Looks to me
like the currently-available webcams are a good investment in both
good and bad neighborhoods, so privacy schmivacy, we should be
putting this in place. Everywhere. I haven't yet. I want to plug into
a network of some sort, so that my cam could be used by anyone
who wants to track the location of anyone who should pass by. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:51 MST