XPost: alt.law-enforcement, seattle.politics
"a425couple" <
a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_ZrKL.145257$
0dpc.10453@fx33.iad...
In My Humble Opinion,
It is gaining physical security, but upping the risk of losing
thought and opinion security.
First slogan everything that people use will be misused.
Next slogan we are all individually more powerful than
previous generations, given the increase in knowledge.
That includes making explosives and toxins and using
them in the name of the cause. Or just using a vehicle
to run over people. We have a lot of trust built into the
system given how many people are behind you in any
crowd, or moving past you in a vehicle making killing
speed, or handling your food and drink. Enough people
have been willing to be violent to the point of killing for
what most would rate as a minor cause. Almost every
killing has decision points that could have prevented it
and plenty of people using hindsight to apportion blame.
How many entertainment shows routinely have the good guys
being given access to information without the proper authority
and using it to save what otherwise would be lost? So why
have the need for the authority? Or the "in your face total
surveillance", but of the already proved to audience bad guy,
not the innocent who finally breaks under the pressure.
Because complete surveillance enables enforcing complete
obedience to the rules of those doing the surveillance.
Repressive states already do this, the new systems enable
it to be done more efficiently.
Best way to get there is to help make sure the people in
power cannot lose power via the public, help this by being
convinced the alternative will rape, loot and murder so the
good guys can lie, cheat and steal in the name of the cause.
Of course you are the target of the lies and are cheated and
stolen from. The bigger the voter margin your political
representatives have the more they are tuned to the power
brokers, not the electorate.
The longer any group is in power the higher the fees they
charge, money probably, also being able to decide what
happens according to what those in power like plus
enforcing obedience. And even if the people at the top
are honest and ethical, corruption gets built into the system,
after all the people in power are blamed when things go
wrong, even if they had nothing to do with the problem, so
little personal benefit looking for trouble. Those in power tend
to be told what they want to hear or what the subordinates
think they want to hear and that accumulates.
All organisations rapidly move to their primary duty of
looking after the people in charge, everyone else is
secondary. And one such protection is dealing with
critics, starting with the standard debate, through
overwhelming them "litigation to exhaustion", to
harassment, private investigators, unfavourable
publicity drops. Been around for centuries. And this
is magnified if it is a government organisation.
Start with anyone who has upset the local police.
Backing off for a moment, if you have a following on
social media it is easy to make life miserable for
any critic. Sure you might want to tap someone on
their electronic shoulder to say you disagree but
humans are social animals, multiply the tap by a
large enough number and it becomes a
sledgehammer heading for the back of the head.
Even if everyone is polite. And lots of people take
the cue from "their opinion leader" to be rude or
worse. No need for surveillance, just people power.
Stalking comes next.
We can communicate almost instantly to almost anyone
almost anywhere, then comes what we say. What we use
the information for and how much thinking we outsource is
our decision.
It is just amazing how much privacy most citizens have just given up. Voluntarily, without court orders. Probably fair hunk out of ignorance.
Or necessity, like the loyalty discounts making ends meet.
Of course while the publicity says best pricing for you the data
can enable the seller to obtain best price for them. Sort of like
being able to read a customer's body language to know how
much they really want an item but with more sales people
likely to be able to tell correctly.
Use electronic money, starting with credit cards a few generations
ago now, less chance of loss if you lose your purse or wallet.
We, or our relatives, have given up DNA samples so that matches
can be made to cell material found at crime scenes.
That is a social decision, when can law enforcement query the
non law enforcement data sets. When can law enforcement
take and keep relevant samples. Also what checks are in the
system, given humans will make mistakes.
From our cell phones we can most often be tracked. These records
can go back months, or be used in real time.
Back in the day there were all those letter intercept operations.
The slogan to remember is the computer never forgets.
The use of public cameras recording the area. Evidence
closer to real time gives a better chance of a good outcome.
Police learn rapidly eye witnesses are usually not.
Our autos can also often be tracked. And after an accident,
that data can be pulled up about our speeding etc.
How many horse and carts had registration numbers?
Many of us have watches, that can also be tracked, and they are also recording even our heartbeat.
If you want to stay in touch people have to know where
you are.
(Wife wonders were you exercising, or having sex??)
If she cannot tell the difference what has been going on recently? :-)
In a more complex world you need more advice on what
choices there are and which is best for you. Someone has
to know enough about you to provide the advice. At the
same time the system needs to tell you what the advisor's
strengths and weaknesses are, otherwise it increases the
chances of exploitation.
We are increasing physical security, your watch tells the
world you are having a medical episode, or you can call
emergency from where you are, the auto license scanners
pick up more of the unregistered and more likely unsafe
vehicles and similar for unregistered drivers.
Cameras everywhere give plenty of evidence. Catching
those who do the crimes of violence, theft etc. is much more
likely, and the chance of being caught is the biggest deterrent.
Those in power tend to love anarchists, the ones who
turn up to demonstrations to have a fight. That tends
to reduce the number of protestors ("See only a noisy
minority") or cause trouble ("See only a violent minority")
making it easier to ignore them. Less chance of hijack,
more chance for large peaceful protest.
More physical security can mean more political security,
feeling safe to attend events day or night while expressing
yourself and it can be used to give the powerful more job
security and power. It will do both.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)