X-Message-Number: 24630 Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:53:08 -0700 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Re: I guess I wasn't clear enough about surveillance References: <> > > >Message #24618 >From: >Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:36:23 EDT >Subject: surveillance > >Although it's probably a waste of time even to talk about it, I disagree >with James about the surveillance problem. I'm all for surveillance of everyone >by everyone. > >First of all, it's unstoppable. Secondly, it's mostly beneficial, e.g. >providing warning of crime or evidence to use afterward. (I understand there have >been good results with TV cameras in public places in England.) Third, it's >totally illogical to allow human observation as permissible--for example, >police patrols or alert citizens--but not allow automated means. Fourth, the >possibility of abuse is overstated--nobody and no government has the resources to >review all the data for illicit purposes. > >Remember too that the anonymity of big cities is partly a recent thing and >usually more bad than good. In earlier times, in small communities, and in >large families, there were always nosy neighbors watching you, and that was a >good thing on balance. > >Eventually, every home will have external and internal monitors with full >coverage in continuous operation. Later every individual will have the same, >with continuous uploads to secure remote storage, including smells as well as >audio-video. That protection is worth a lot more than privacy. > >R.E. > Robert, I'm sorry I somehow didn't make clear my actual position on surveilance. My meaning was also not clear to someone else on WTA-Talk so I'll save time and typing by pasting my reply to them, here. Message: 1 Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:35:33 -0700 From: James Swayze <> Subject: [wta-talk] Re: future of surveillance To: Message-ID: <> >> >> >>Message: 1 >>Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:30:56 -0400 >>From: Thomson Comer <> >>Subject: Re: [wta-talk] A4M conference coverage >>To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List >> <> >>Message-ID: <> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >>James, >> >>Why do you feel that surveillance is going to be such an issue in the future? >> >>In my opinion, as societies continue to liberalize and increase the >>lawful openness of abnormal ideas and diversity, surveillance may >>actually be beneficial to freedom and peace. <snip> Thomas, I apologize I should have signed my post James S. to prevent confusion between me and James Hughes. You are I suspect responding to my post about surveillance coming to Chicago. I happen to agree with you in spirit. I look forward to total transparency someday. I really liked Jim Halperin's ideas in "The First Immortal" and in my writings I have expanded upon that. I added that not only will personal crimes against us lessen due to the fact everyone will know that no crime can go unseen nor unpunished thereby thwarting most crime -- except crimes of passion -- because every action is being recorded by everyone's personal surveillance and general surveillance and all that data simultaneously uploaded and out of reach of tampering, but I also add that I believe it will be possible for a device to sniff the air for skin particles and sample DNA on the spot to record an absolute correct identification. This could also warn of toxins or even alert to personal compatibility. However, we must be careful that two way surveillance [transparency] will be allowed. As the laws are now there will come a day when the government must relinquish its hold on the right to surveill us exclusively without our being allowed to surveill them back. As I said we are rapidly approaching this conundrum due to the now becoming ubiquitous cell phone cams. Without bi-directional surveillance it is one way, top down, unfair and prone to abuse. We must be allowed to watch the watchers. However, as it stands the government will say this cannot be allowed. The excuse will be terrorists will use the knowledge of where cameras are and are not against us. This is short sighted because if total transparency is allowed to flourish the amount of surveillance grows exponentially increasing the coverage far beyond the governments ability thereby helping to keep everyone safer beyond what the government alone could do. This would mean all data would be shared. This also means we must become a lot less shy about what we allow to be seen and what we do not. I wrote once that pornography laws will need adjustment when the day arrives that one can record everything their eyes see. And if everything is surveilled for the protection of all then there certainly will be someone monitoring the data, maybe an AI but until that humans and this means strangers will be witnessing the sexual activity of other strangers. One wouldn't want to be off the grid and caught inflagrante when something happens that you'd have been better off having recorded. Many social mores as a society will need a serious overhaul to become more liberal. It's a very involved issue to consider if all is taken to its logical extreme. --- I'll add this summary. I'm all for more surveillance. I'm just saying we must insist it is not just them watching us and ot the revrese also allowed. I thought that was the point I was making but I apparently came off as anti surveillance. However, I don't think John and Jane Q. Public are thinking about ALL the logical extremes increased survillance must be taken. James -- Membership in order of joining - all comments on any subject are solely my opinion only and not reflective of the official positions of the following: Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org Methuselah Foundation http://www.methuselahfoundation.org Methuselah Mouse Prize http://www.methuselahmouse.org [Give $$$ for life!] World Transhumanist Assoc. http://www.transhumanism.org/ WTA Portland Chapter http://home.comcast.net/~swayzej/pdxwta.html MY WEBSITE: http://home.comcast.net/~swayzej/jspage_main.html Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24630