Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Two things:I have read David Brins arguments. I despise them.
>Unfortunately, I also can't refute them. :) It's annoying to be confronted
>with something you really don't like but also can't logically deny.
I agree. The surveillance state is coming whether we want it to or
not. The real danger IMHO lies in only giving the power to view the
surveillance net to the government. As an example, currently you can
view the traffic cameras for the state of Maryland
http://www.dpwt.com/jpgcap/camintro.html. Here is a good example of
the state giving the public access to monitor public roads (useful
for checking driving conditions or congestion). Obviously privacy is
something less than it was prior to the installation of the camera
network.
Declan McCullagh has a nice photo of a Times Square NYPD camera.
http://www.shorten.com/image/950-3/timessq-cam.html
And as most of us already know, most every London intersection and
most major destinations are already under camera surveillance.
Society is going to change with these technologies. Privacy and
anonymity can no longer be taken for granted. The choice is do we
let an elite or various governmental police state agencies only have
access or do we have an open society and open the camera networks to
the public at large? I say open.
Regards, Matt-
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month)
Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229
Archived at http://www.egroups.com/list/fa/
**************************************************************************
