Re: [silk] No Hiding Place | 1984 in 2001

[Eugene.Leitl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Keith Adam wrote:

> Indeed, all it takes is an 'Order In Council' issued by the PM and signed by
> the Monarch to invoke 'emergency security' regulations. Take the legislation

It doesn't have ot take an official order. All it takes is some more sliding
down the slippery slope. You don't mind, don't you? If you do, you probably
have something to hide. I <report>: <name>Keith Adam</name> <subjectID> 0xd3adb33f 
</subjectID> has been just found <guilty> of thought crime</guilty>; automatical 
execution via <method>remotely detonated cranial explosive</method> has ensued at 
<relative_time>+637 ms</relative_time> after the verdict <class>0x03</class> 
through <entity>0x037be11</entity>. I recommend close scrutiny of all subjects 
in more than <temporal>10 s</temporal> contact at <spatial>5 m</spatial> radius 
within the last <search_scope>300 Ms</search_scope>, everyone <score>
<unit>sigma</unit>7</score> is to be depth probed for subversive potential in 
the simulator using the <standard>#37</standard>  procedure <comment>open cranium 
MEG/multielectrode array </comment>), execution </method>@will</method> at 
subversion <threshold> better than eleven<unit>theta</unit></threshold></report>.

> We don't have a modern collective history of subjugation, tyranny or
> dictatorship.  I suppose that goes a long way to explaining our acceptance
> of the situation.

Indeed. In Germany the memories are still more or less fresh, the attitudes
have changed, so it's a lot harder, paradoxically.
 
> The TLA has one of the biggest databases in Europe.  It has a list of every
> household in Britain, the occupants, and whether they have a TV licence.
> (The BBC is funded from this licence.)  It assumes that everyone has a TV
> and therefore has the legal power to search a home.  Any equipment capable
> of receiving TV pictures needs to be licensed whether it receives BBC or
> not.

We have a similiar agency hereabouts, but afaik it has no powers to search.
In fact I'm currently conducting a controlled experiment: I'm about to move
in into a new flat (interestingly enough, the agency reacted immediately by 
sending me some (rather nastily worded) mail which I intend to ignore on
purpose, so I presume they're not just sweeping the neighbourhood but have 
an active notification machinery). In any case I'm looking forward to what
kinds of goons they'll be sending my way, and whether they actually manage
to acquire a search warrant (I  don't  think  so).
 
> There is widespread acceptance of CCTV in Britain.  Nearly every town centre

Yeah, them Brits are crazy, now it's official. What next, pet mambas for
the toddlers?

> has a good few cameras recording away.  The majority of citizens will, I
> believe, if asked, be in favour.   However, I would like top see their

Will they be still in favour, when they realize that facial biometrics
can be computed in realtime by a simple DSP, and that, since being
compact vectors, they can be radiated to a data warehouse via a simple 
cellular link? That *every single* passerby can be inserted into a 
database with a date/location stamp? That over a critical cam density
a complete trail of every single citizen over his entire lifetime can
be tracked, and crosscorrelated? In favour, my ass. These fools don't
know of what they're really in favour. If they do now, and made the
fox a ward in the henhouse, they fully deserve what is heading their
way.

> streams made public - perhaps on the internet.  I do not see it as an
> invasion of my privacy.   But perhaps a protection of my rights - in that it
> deters crime and allows me to walk the streets not afraid for my safety.

The price is terribly high indeed for that. I suggest you think really hard
about what gubbermint biometrics vs. an electronic neighbourhood watch really
means.
 
> Arthur C Clarke in 3001 saw the end of war because everyone was watching
> each other from news cameras, on satellites in Earth orbit.   Perhaps he
> does have a point.   Would we allow it to go that far for such a high goal?

You should read Brin then (blechhhh).
 
> Just a few thoughts
> Keith