Re: (fwd) Re: What's so bad about a Surveillance State?

> Citizen-Unit Miller is to be commended for his
> recognition that the common good is served when the state
> fulfills its surveillance obligations.  

> 

> [more funny stuff deleted]

I enjoyed Tim May's post.  I'm hoping you all realize my post was  
simply an electronic stick jabbed into the hornet's nest.

I do *not* think a surveillance state is a good thing.  I  
deliberately constructed my post to get people's attention.  I want  
people (other than just Cypherpunks) to think about life in a  
surveillance state.

One goal of mine is to construct a list of all the seemly positive  
aspects of surveillance technology.  I don't think the US will  
suddenly become a total surveillance state overnight.  I do fear the  
US is evolving into one.  Each "positive" use of surveillance  
technology may become accepted for one reason or another, because, by  
individually, they may not seem too harmful.  However, the cumulative  
effect of the incorporation of all these "positive" uses of  
surveillance will transform the US (or any country) into a awful  
place to live.

It may be easier to persuade people not to support government  
sponsored/controlled surveillance technology if all the "positive"  
uses are described together, rather than individually.  Then again,  
maybe not.  I can at least try.
 


Jim_Miller@suite.com

Citizen-Unit Miller wastes more of the social body's time by writing:

> > Citizen-Unit Miller is to be commended for his
> > recognition that the common good is served when the state
> > fulfills its surveillance obligations.  
> 

> > [more funny stuff deleted]
> 
> I enjoyed Tim May's post.  I'm hoping you all realize my post was  
> simply an electronic stick jabbed into the hornet's nest.

Thanks, Unit Jim! This citizen-unit did indeed realize your
motivations, especially as you went on to explain them (in the section
I carefully elided!).

"What's wrong with a surveillance state?" is so easily answered with
satire, with an "if this goes on" analysis, that I couldn't resist.
All of the arguments are well-know to cypherpunks, of course, but Jim
posted his call for comments to various newsgroups, where the
arguments are either not as well known or are confused by comments
from didactic shills like David Sternlight and Steve Pope.

> I do *not* think a surveillance state is a good thing.  I  
> deliberately constructed my post to get people's attention.  I want  
> people (other than just Cypherpunks) to think about life in a  
> surveillance state.
> 

Good luck to Jim, I suppose. Me, I've been so opposed to the Big
Brother state since 1966 (when I first read "1984"), that I can't
conceive of sitting down to make arguments about the "benefits" of
such a surveillance state.

I'll stick to humor of color.


--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."