Subject:
|
Re: Somewhat OT: Ever read any Robert J. Sawyer?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:33:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1435 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Simmons wrote:
> > Too "Big Brotherish" yes, too well anticipated. I am afraid when I see cameras
> > flourishing at every street corners, but I guess that's what tomorrow will be
> > made of. {Scary}.
> >
> > JP.
>
> I think that cameras in law enforcement vehicles are an excellent idea
> all-around. If someone's committed a crime and they know that their actions
> are being recorded, I like to believe that this would have the effect of
> making them censure themselves instead of forcing someone elso to do it
> (doesn't always work as evidenced by all the cable clip shows of security
> cameras!).
I am not sure I get it!?!...
> The other thing is that if we are to believe our officers when
> they deny police brutality, how could they possibly object to being recorded
> while doing their duty if nothing improper is happening?
Right.
> I think that monitoring could work (and not be scary) if it were implemented
> properly. Robert J. Sawyer is finishing a trilogy of sci-fi books where
> humans encounter Neanderthals from a parallel universe (using quantam
> mechanics theory to open the portal). The Neanderthals have developed an
> individual monitoring system. Every Neanderthal has a implant that monitors
> everything that happens to the implantee within a certain radius throughout
> their entire life. The implant cannot be tampered with and the info is
> recorded in a way that is totally unalterable. However, no one watches the
> monitoring as it's being recorded, and any individual can view their
> recorded info at any time.
>
> This had the effect of making every Neanderthal personally responsible for
> his/her own actions. They know that if they commit a crime, even if no one
> is watching, it will be recorded (and can be played back as a holographic
> movie) as irrefutable proof should an accusation be made. Of course, the
> presentation of this principle in the story is idealized, I nonetheless
> found it very attractive.
Attractive, yes. Very interesting!
> Now, all this blather is not to say that I think that this idea is the only
> one that could work, but I do think that it has potential.
>
> Whaddya think?
>
> Dave
I am French, and I *love* debates!
I am afraid of a "big brother is watching you" kind of society. When you say it
makes everyone "responsible for his/her action", I think this is what our
western judeo-christian culture (and maybe I should just say christian actually)
pushes us to beleive. In our religious culture, we beleive one day or an other
we'll be judged upon what we did here, and we beleive HE sees everthing. I am
not so sure I enjoy this idea : each and every one of us should know there is
space for mistake, and therefore forgiveness.
But what scares me about this "big brother is watching you" society is that you
conceive it under a democratic scheme, meaning you see this kind of utopia being
put in some goods hands. And I am always thinking about the worse... what would
it become in some totalitarian hands? What if this kind of every citizen
surveilance system was used by, let's say, Keith's Iron Reich?
And I guess this is not just by chance that most of the places or countries
where I've seen cameras flourishing at street corners have conservative
governments of some kind...
Cheers,
JP.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Somewhat OT: Ever read any Robert J. Sawyer?
|
| (...) cameras (...) be (...) I think that cameras in law enforcement vehicles are an excellent idea all-around. If someone's committed a crime and they know that their actions are being recorded, I like to believe that this would have the effect of (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
