Ernest Schaal wrote:

> So you are advocating a system even worse than that in "1984"?

No, today's technology would provide a much better system. 1984 technology sucks
in 2004, but the concept was amazing for its day.

> >> They are human, and as such they are capable of abuse.
> >
> > Which is why they would also be watched.
>
> That could to abuse of the worse sort, worse than that of Japan or Germany
> during WWII, worse than that of Stalin.

Monitoring government and law enforcement themselves (recall whom we are referring
to, police who are not God), could lead to abuse of the worst sort? One would
think that even in the current world, monitoring of law enforcement and government
is to prevent abuse.

> Clearly, we disagree on the basic premise of the importance of personal
> privacy in daily life.

Do you really think so?

> >> That is something that neither criminals nor honest people are willing to
> >> give up.
> >
> > Of course criminals do not want to give up their privacy or the US
> > Constitution. And they would thank you.
>
> Not only would I be thanked by criminals, but also by the larger,
> non-criminal class. Very few people are so eager to throw away their
> personal freedoms and privacy.

Especially criminals or other people with something to hide.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can
shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"