1997-07-25 - Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain

Header Data

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Message Hash: 256d6c932ec26e02c56a8eb0e4ea0a3765b986699a5cb7bf70afbaf71cb0aa80
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970724184031.273B-100000@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <19970715183341.01502@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-25 01:47:55 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:47:55 +0800

Raw message

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:47:55 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: CCTV Cameras in Britain
In-Reply-To: <19970715183341.01502@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970724184031.273B-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 05:43:59PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> [.deleted.]
> > I wouldn't.  Its the state's duty to protect my liberties and if they can't
> > or won't the obligation falls on me.
> > The product of liberty and security is a constant.
> This is obviously false.  Zero liberty and zero security is a quite
> possible situation (laying strapped to the table, waiting for your 
> lethal injection, for example), as is some liberty and some security (the 
> normal situation).

	I would say that in the above situation, one is rather well 
secured...


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com






Thread