From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 11:35:27 PST
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: re: real time surveillances
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.941212113355.25302A-100000@crl6.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

C'punks,

Mark Hittinger had several thoughts about real-time surveillance.
He wrote:

    ... The technology to fabricate video evidence is there
    is it not?

Big problem with self-surveillance; not a problem with a properly
set up system of police surveillance.  The critical element is a
trusted third-party agency to archive the tapes.

    There was a relatively recent sad case of two officers
    that had a video camera installed in their patrol
    car.... the occupants of the car murdered the policemen
    and the *entire* scene was obtained on video tape....
    It is possible that they might have been saved had this
    been real-time video rather than taped.

Yes, and real-time video monitoring would be a good upgrade when
the technology allows it (real-time location monitoring is
possible now).  In the meantime, *obvious* video recording would
also help protect officers in that some perps would think twice
before killing someone *on camera*.

    ... Another great idea would be anonymous real-time
    monitoring of vital signs along with position data.
    Auto-911 if you will.  We know somebody at this corner
    had a heart attack 5 minutes ago where is he?

The developers of the localizer technology I mentioned in my
article have anticipated you.  Their equipment can do real-time
vital sign monitoring.  There are some obvious benefits for wired
cops plus some subtle drawbacks for bad cops.  (I leave discovery
of said drawbacks as an exercise for the student.)


 S a n d y

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