in article 418F7374.BDE4F6FD@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 11/8/04 10:24 PM:

> 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.

Again you confuse efficiency with goodness. The system you advocate is even
worse than that in "1984" in that it would be more efficient in destroying
the last remnants of privacy.

>>>> 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.

But who monitors the monitors?

>> Clearly, we disagree on the basic premise of the importance of personal
>> privacy in daily life.
> 
> Do you really think so?

Do you really think not?

You simply ignore that good people might value their privacy.

> 
>>>> 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.

No, simply everyone who values their privacy.