in article 418E7158.CA65C3BE@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 11/8/04 4:02 AM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> God watching? The police are not God.
> 
> I did not say security personnel were God. I said that concept of being
> watched would be a better comparison than 1984.
> 
> Speaking of 1984, it was remarkable that the protagonist was found in the
> first place, or that the exercise instructor happened to catch him while he
> was slacking off. That system was way too lax and primitive. One viewing
> screen in an entire dwelling with a fixed field of view. Geez. Eighty dollars
> online gets better than that nowadays.

So you are advocating a system even worse than that in "1984"? I don't think
that just because a technology is possible it should necessarily be
implemented. We have the capability to wipe out the human race, but I don't
think it is a good idea.
 
>> 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.
 
>> Under your plan, there would be no concept of individual privacy.
> 
> Minimal at best. I liked one manufacturer's proposal of toilets that
> automatically conducted urinalysis to monitor people's health. Let it also
> test for controlled substances.

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

>> 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.