From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 09 2002 - 17:40:38 MDT
mwiik@messagenet.com writes:
>I asked a friend recently released from prison if he would have felt
>safer with a camera in his cell. He said no, as they would've found his
>contraband. I wondered what kind of contraband my friend would need,
>since he was determined to be a model prisoner. Turned out it was a
>reading light, for late night reading (which was allowed).
Universal surveillance *doesn't* help the innocent. It helps those
who do things those with guns like. Universal surveillance would
allow Mafiosi to catch people who try to obtain some defense, for
example. It would be grossly detrimental to all who "commit"
victimless crimes. As a gay man, I am *reaaally* glad they
didn't have universal surveillance in the 60's because I'm sure I'd
still be illegal throughout the country. Universal surveillance
would probably put the kibosh on a lot of hopeful trends like
drug legalization.
As long as we have the phenomenal concentration of power a central
government provides, some access to secrecy is essential to
control its excesses. Don't be deluded by the fact that the
government's power is often deployed for good ends, like catching
burglars. It has other effects as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:53 MST