Here's a note from a friend of mine. I'll call him "John" for these purposes, even though that's his real name. The problem with John is not that he's too cheap to join SI, it's that he wasn't lucky enough to have someone "join him up" for free, as was my case:
"I've been reading with interest the various message board proposals
for catching bad guys before they can do bad things, nationwide ID's, and
so forth, and I am sympathetic. Truly.
But I would like to toss in a couple of thoughts for your consideration:
First, bad guys study a society over years and learn its flaws,
sometimes by trial and error. Often complex ID systems just run up the
price of counterfeit ID's. Naza Germany and the USSR had the tightest internal
security ever seen on Earth, yet resistance groups and spies learned how
to function and survive - and sabotage anything they wanted to sabotage.
Read A Man Called Intrepid by William Stevenson for some
insights. Flawless ID systems for the masses have never worked,
and never will. That isn't to say we don't need better immigration controls
-- clearly we do.
Second, consider what a future Bill Clinton might do with greatly enhanced
surveillance and liberty-invading powers... the mind boggles! Bush
is a decent and benign man, but every new proposed law should be put to
the Clinton test.
Third, when intelligence is gathered about private citizens it is always
available, quietly and under the table, in exchange for some present or
future consideration, by the powerful and wealthy. Government personnel
can be corrupted as easily -- perhaps more easily -- than anyone else.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Always. Databases
will be built, CD-R's (and soon DVD-R's) will be burned... and privacy
and liberty will be at greater and greater risk.
Fourth, one of the greatest problems we have in this country is the
widespread inability for honest, law abiding, well-trained citizens to
be prepared to defend themselves without be arrested, harassed, sued into
oblivion, subjected to ridiculously complex regulations, etc. The pro-gun
lobby wants everyone to be able to carry any weapon they want. The
anti-gun lobby doesn't want anyone to be able to have anything,
period. The optimal solution is somewhere in between...
...A tentative example: Of the entire population, probably only a few
percent of the people have the temperament and intelligence to carry a
concealed self-defense weapon routinely and never abuse the privilege.
Let's call them citizen-deputies (any name will do). They are checked out
by the local police and FBI. They pass reasonable 'common-sense' tests.
They are reasonably trained. They carry elaborate ID's. They may not consume
any alcohol while carrying. They do not need 44 magnums.
In fact, they start out with two-shot 22 derringers. Nobody goes
out looking for trouble with a 22 derringer! It's really more of a 'live'
character test.... But they can carry them anywhere that police
can.
...After two years with a clean record of non-use (or justified use),
they graduate to senior citizen-deputies and carry a small 5- or 6-round
38 revolver. To be legal, each bullet has ID 'taggets' (as used in explosives)
inside. These are linked to your name. The guns also have a small pinhole
camera, memory chip, and battery under the barrel to record (say) two five-seconds
loops of audio/video when the gun is removed from its holster or case.
The first loop stops when the first round is fired, the second loop stops
when the second round is fired. A bright infrared LED provides illumination
for a night scene. The video proves self-defense... or it doesn't. If the
police find justification, they get to keep their carry privileges. If
sued they are defended by the government, just as a deputy would be.
Bottom line: What if three or four citizen-deputies had been on those
WTC flights? Its food for thought. Or we can just end up with 10% of the
population consisting of police, sheriffs, FBI, etc., "watching over" the
other 90% of us? Wiretaps, tiny cameras, and bugs everywhere, like "1984"
-- just a few years later. It's not a pretty picture.
Rumsfeld spoke this evening and said something quite profound, more
or less, that: "This is not about a problem with America, its about a problem
with foreign nations." Let's fix the problem. And its not us!
-John" |
