From: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 94 21:03:12 PST
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE:  Real-time surveillance of the police
Message-ID: <ab1189a9060210047b41@[132.162.201.201]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 11:11 PM 12/11/94, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>    ... Yes, that's right - keep surveillance cameras going
>    on _yourself_. If you're not doing anything illegal,
>    you've got nothing to fear from taping everything you
>    do.
>
>I don't like this idea one bit.  I agree with Tim that it is the
>first step on a very slippery slope.
>
>    ... I expect that it will be difficult to convince our
>    Nation's Finest to adopt this new technology - though
>    I'm sure they'd be happy to apply it to parolees and
>    those serving on probation....
>
>It would be difficult for the cops to reject it.  After all, it
>definitely benefits vast majority of good cops.  It only hurts
>that teensy-tiny minority who violate people's rights.  Right?

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic here, although I don't think you
are. That seems like a slippery slope all it's own, there.  I don't like it
when someone tells me "what do you have to worry about if you aren't
breaking any laws," and I don't like it when someone says that about the
cops too.    That argument is awfully scary.
Yeah, if the cops didn't want to accept such a thing, it might be worth
calling them on their hypocrisy for applying that argument to citizens and
not to police.  But I don't think it would be wise to use the "what do you
have to worry about if you aren't breaking any laws," argument too often.