On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >(Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice
> >doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can
> >negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her
> >presence. If he violates this contract, perhaps she can collect. Some
> >day this will likely be done via polycentric law, a la "Snow Crash.")
>
> Nice.
So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all
cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away
the 'right not to speak'.
No, this view misses the 'rights of the individual' and instead goes for
the other extreme, protecting 'society' from some imagined 'privacy
invasion'. As if self-defence isn't as private as it gets.
No, I don't have any responsibility to tell you when I'm recording or why.
The best protection for bad speech is more speech, get your own recorder.
I predict a new industry, mobile surveillance systems for cars. There will
be a small CCD camera mounted on the passenger side with a wide-angle or
perhaps split lens system via a itty bitty periscope. There will also be a
microphone on the driver side window sill, as well as the middle bumper
area. It will drive a small 12VDC recorder (initially tape, moving to
solid state).
____________________________________________________________________
The solution lies in the heart of humankind.
Chris Lawson
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
