re: real time surveillances

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                         SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Mark Hittinger had several thoughts about real-time surveillance.
He wrote:

    ... The technology to fabricate video evidence is there
    is it not?

Big problem with self-surveillance; not a problem with a properly
set up system of police surveillance.  The critical element is a
trusted third-party agency to archive the tapes.

    There was a relatively recent sad case of two officers
    that had a video camera installed in their patrol
    car.... the occupants of the car murdered the policemen
    and the *entire* scene was obtained on video tape....
    It is possible that they might have been saved had this
    been real-time video rather than taped.

Yes, and real-time video monitoring would be a good upgrade when
the technology allows it (real-time location monitoring is
possible now).  In the meantime, *obvious* video recording would
also help protect officers in that some perps would think twice
before killing someone *on camera*.

    ... Another great idea would be anonymous real-time
    monitoring of vital signs along with position data.
    Auto-911 if you will.  We know somebody at this corner
    had a heart attack 5 minutes ago where is he?

The developers of the localizer technology I mentioned in my
article have anticipated you.  Their equipment can do real-time
vital sign monitoring.  There are some obvious benefits for wired
cops plus some subtle drawbacks for bad cops.  (I leave discovery
of said drawbacks as an exercise for the student.)


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> The developers of the localizer technology I mentioned in my
> article have anticipated you.  Their equipment can do real-time
> vital sign monitoring.  There are some obvious benefits for wired
> cops plus some subtle drawbacks for bad cops.  (I leave discovery
> of said drawbacks as an exercise for the student.)

Heh.  You mean, I assume, that such a device would, when worn by an
officer in court, essentially become a broadcast polygraph?  It would
also provide an interesting check in wrongful force cases as to
whether a cop really was in fear of his life at a given time.

Paul Ste. Marie wrote:
> 
> > The developers of the localizer technology I mentioned in my
> > article have anticipated you.  Their equipment can do real-time
> > vital sign monitoring.  There are some obvious benefits for wired
> > cops plus some subtle drawbacks for bad cops.  (I leave discovery
> > of said drawbacks as an exercise for the student.)
> 
> Heh.  You mean, I assume, that such a device would, when worn by an
> officer in court, essentially become a broadcast polygraph?  It would
> also provide an interesting check in wrongful force cases as to
> whether a cop really was in fear of his life at a given time.

I can't speak for what Sandy S. meant, but I can assure you that a
"broadcast polygraph" is not planned, nor is it likely to be
technologically feasible any time soon.

The basic technology is for position localization, not vital sign
reporting, etc. To be sure, a vital signs subsystem could be linked to
another system (as could a polygraph, with a lot of effort). But such
is not the main intended purpose.

--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.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

> I can't speak for what Sandy S. meant, but I can assure you that a
> "broadcast polygraph" is not planned, nor is it likely to be
> technologically feasible any time soon.
> 
> The basic technology is for position localization, not vital sign
> reporting, etc. To be sure, a vital signs subsystem could be linked to
> another system (as could a polygraph, with a lot of effort). But such
> is not the main intended purpose.

My point was that essentially a (broadcast of vital signs) ==
(broadcast of polygraph).  There's some stuff that's different, but I
don't think that it's sufficient to make a real difference.

What your friends are current working on implementing, of course, is
not (yet) to this point.

	Paul