From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Sat Oct 02 1999 - 20:26:30 MDT
Mike,
I think you've got a point, though it depends on how the camera
surveillance is managed.
If it is private citizens who carry cameras on their person or property
and are free to send the video when and where they choose, and the idea
caught on so everyone wanted to do it, then it would be a form of non-coerced
self organization, and thus extropic.
If however, it was a government (or other superorganism) that mandated
universal surveillance, even if the system were fully automated and operated
in good faith, only used to prevent harm or capture and convict violent
offenders, then it would not be extropian because of its top down nature and
nonvoluntary nature. You are correct however that it could be considered
transhumanistic.
Ubiquitous camera surveillance would be a powerful tool in the fight
against violent crime, but as with any powerful tool, its misuse could cause
great harm as well. In the case of the extropian approach there's always the
chance someone might be able to tap into your surveillance, and that is a
risk you'd have to guard against and be willing to accept. In the case of
the other, governmental approach, the danger is that those who are supposed
to be guarding you may turn the surveillance against you (or as bad, do their
job incompetantly).
Personally, I think that the best way to implement camera surveillance
would be on a private basis, with perhaps a voluntary fund set up to help pay
for camera security for the indigent (who often times are the ones most at
risk), with an option to have your pictures downloaded to the police for
analysis, evidence, and as a call for help.
Glen Finney
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:23 MST