Rykk wrote:

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

Even if the system were on their person?

> 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.

Make people stay in regulated zones, or make them carry the system with them.

> 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.

Let the government print money.

Some people here (not I) claim public debt is not a bad thing, and even a
weakened currency can be a good thing for an export economy.

> There is NO WAY any nation could financially support the kind of ambitious
> project proposed in 1984.

You call that ambitious? One screen per dwelling? Entire parts of the city or
geographic regions unmonitored? People not being monitored, even where there
were viewing screens?

If all you wanted was one camera per dwelling, and to check on it only when you
felt like it, you could create your own wireless monitoring and recording
system now, for less than $170, on top of the computer and VCR you already own,
from www.x10.com.

> 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.

Such systems of error and corruption are why it would be better to know the
truth.

> 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.

--
 "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!"