"Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message 
news:418E6BCE.9B2F5CBF@yahoo.co.jp...
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>>
>> Oh, yeah, these ubiquitous cameras.
>>
>> Have you ever really thought about this? For example, how many cameras
>> would you need for a SMALL, compact city, and how much would it cost?
>>
>> I'll give you an easy example; try San Francisco, OK?
>
> A bare minimum could be the same as the number of people, and a simple 
> system would cost thousands of
> dollars each.
>

Err, 1 per person would leave a lot of area uncovered.  People will flock to 
those blind zones making the system you propose impotent.  You could move 
the cameras to areas that cannot be avoided, but people would behave 
differently when in these zones.

But it gets worse.  Any meaningful recordings would create physical storage 
problems and an ongoing drain on the economy. But it gets even worse.  It is 
a proven fact that people are less productive when people are looking over 
their shoulder.  Lower production would lower the economy.  A slower economy 
would mean fewer tax dollars, fewer tax dollars means less money to support 
this surveillance system.  But it gets even worse, this camera system be 
completely meaningless without an army of staff to review all the 
surveillance.  These people have to get paid which requires tax dollars. 
Such a massive project as this would require a substantial tax increase. 
Such a substantial tax increase will leave fewer dollars in the people's 
pockets.  Less money in public hands means less money spent, the very 
definition of a slowing economy.  Slower economies still provide fewer tax 
dollars.  Let the spiral of death begin.

There is NO WAY any nation could financially support the kind of ambitious 
project proposed in 1984.  The only reason Russia lasted as long as it did 
was because it was less efficient.  Instead of cameras on every corner, 
children were encouraged to rat on their parents.  Then they happily 
punished people on suspicion, or even for the projecting an image that MIGHT 
encourage someone else to take issue with the STATE.

Sorry, but any system like that is staggeringly impossible.  Perhaps, MAYBE, 
if the state had a massive store of cash to begin with, it could make such a 
system last one generation.  Then that nation would have collapsed to the 
point it can only improve on the charity of other nations.

Rykk