Re: Anon

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Adam Shostack wrote:
> Brin's argument has two ideas that I find annoying.  One is that the
> changes he forsees are inevitable, the other is that security
> is not about economics.
> The idea that universal surveillance is inevitable is based on
> the assumption that everyone lives in a city, and the technologies of
> spying can be cheaply deployed.  A good deal of privacy can be
> obtained by moving a small or large distance away.  Monitoring
> technology is not cheap.  When it is cheap, the network links to
> connect it all will still be expensive.  (etc.  The economics of a
> surveillance state lead to something in the mix, people, cameras,
> policemen to make arrests etc, being expensive.)

[snippo]

The rich, whether living alone or in an enclave, will have security
technology several generations behind Big Brother.  But then, Big Bro'
is not just one agency.  The NSA will be able to monitor the rich 100%
no matter what they do, whereas the FBI (in 1996 for example) will not
be so well equipped.

As far as the unit cost of surveillance goes, it's cheaper every day.
Hard disk (and other storage) space is way, way up per dollar, processing
speeds and I/O are improving greatly per dollar, and the type of custom
database software and O/S employed by the top surveillance pros is not
at all analogous to the stuff most people use on Unix, DOS, or other
common small computer systems.  I did some pioneer work in high-speed
database work, and the software makes a BIG difference in unit cost of
surveillance.

Sometimes, when ordinary controls don't work because specific groups of
people put up more than the normal amount of resistance, stronger measures
are employed to counter the resistance, i.e., Willie Williams bombing the
Move neighborhood in Philly, Reno burning down the Waco "compound", or
W.T. "Burn-'em" Sherman making his point in Georgia (USA).