From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 06:49:47 +0800
To: pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)
Subject: Re: The Anti-Briefing...
In-Reply-To: <v02140b08adcb6bbc487c@[199.125.128.5]>
Message-ID: <199605252034.NAA26938@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



PW

>Some might argue that if weak crypto can save one child's life
>than it is worth it. This is a strong, sentimental argument, but
>it really doesn't reflect the reality of the tradeoff. We could
>spend a lot more money on airlines, trains and cars and save a
>few kids lives, but the cost could be phenomenal. The fact is
>that government enforced weak crypto is a tradeoff. We pay for
>the ease of the police surveillance because we make life simpler
>for crooks who make their living eavesdropping and circumventing
>security systems. The big question is whether the tradeoff is
>worth it.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more mention of a trend
in Britain toward installing video cameras all over the place.
saw a story on this on "hard copy". apparently they don't have
"invasion of privacy" laws there, and this couple who had been
filmed having sex in an elevator, and the footage sold on a 
video tape, didn 't  have any particular legal recourse.

if people want to study what social effect that widespread
surveillance has, and what its true cost is, I hope that they
look toward Britain to try to gauge some of the effects. apparently
the trend has been in motion there long enough that some serious
studies might be made.

the privacy debate reminds me of speed limits. there is one
side that says, "55 saves lives" and in their tiny brains
think that is the end of the argument. well, 
"50, 45, 40, 35, 30 ..." save lives too.  why did you pick 55?
the point is that there are other factors.

similarly, with police surveillance, small-brained police often
say, "video cameras prevent crimes" and think that is the end
of the argument. or, if you are in NSA, "restricting worldwide
crypto keeps the planet in order". etc. ad infinitum. pathetically
simplistic arguments that the general public does not always
see through. when the public does begin to see through them,
and expect answers that are more complicated than can be 
explained in 30 second sound bites, then I'd say we're making
a bit of progress toward rationality.