From: Sally Pitts (sally2887@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 13:05:13 MDT
Why don't the poor get together and buy some "cheap" real estate in East
Palo Alto, and then wire up that area for surveillance, thus prompting real
estate cost rises....
>From: spike66 <spike66@attbi.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: surveillance helps the innocent. was: Two trials for the same
>crime?
>Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 17:26:29 -0700
>
>spike66 wrote:
>
>>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
>
>Ooops I realized a weakness in my own arguement.
>
>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. I had in
>mind East Palo Alto, which is the last bastion of low
>rents in the valley. It is so ideally located, that if we
>could work out the little problem of the high risk of
>getting killed by going in there, then the yuppy vermin
>would swarm in. The poor lose again.
>
>Suggestions?
>
>spike
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:52 MST