in article 4190B359.55AA0F7A@yahoo.co.jp, Eric Takabayashi at
etakajp@yahoo.co.jp wrote on 11/9/04 9:08 PM:

> Ernest Schaal wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> So what is described in 1984 in actual practice with all its evil, is better
> than a system with little or no privacy, yet because of that power, prevents
> corruption, captures criminals, and protects the public from crime?
> 
> Would you choose 1984 between the two?
> 
> Damn.

I would choose neither. Both the "1984" system and your system are
intolerable. Your say your system would prevent corruption, but it would
probably increase political corruption, as privacy is destroyed and the
system becomes a tool of a repressive state.

>> 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?
> 
> Other monitors.

And who monitors the other monitors? After a while, the monitors would
become the instruments of a ruling class that is concerned more with keeping
power than with fighting crime. (Absolute power corrupts absolutely)

> 
>> You simply ignore that good people might value their privacy.
> 
> You ignore criminals who love privacy and protections.

That is a lie. I have already admitted that criminals (like everyone else)
love privacy and legal protections.