From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 12:58:20 PST
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Real-time surveillance of the police
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941212125649.28598A-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Don Doumakes wrote:

    ... why on earth would the police, who will not consent
    to civilian review, ever go along with something orders
    of magnitude more extreme?

(1)  There are civilian review boards; the consent of the police
is not a prerequisite.  If they don't like it, they can get a
real job.

(2)  It is in their best interests to be protected from false
accusations, and to be able to be quickly located under emergency
conditions.

    ObCrypto/Privacy:  I suspect there would be an immense
    amount of radio traffic involved in keeping track of a
    substantial group of people ... [I doubt] the ability of
    the receivers to digest it all in real time.

(1)  My suggestion was for (probably local) recording, not real
time monitoring of video; therefore, no bandwidth problems.

(2)  Tim might want to comment, but my understanding of the
localizer technology is that it too is somewhat "local" and that
polling or burst transmission keeps the bandwidth requirements at
manageable levels.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~