Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Dialing crime stoppers,faster than a speeding bullet

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:49:51 -0400

Dialing crime stoppers,faster than a speeding bullet

By Andrew Masterson
July 7 2003

When is a consumer product a terrible and insidious evil, and when is it a
force for truth, justice and the Australian way? Context, it appears, is
everything in the brave new digital world.

The gizmo in question is the new generation of mobile phones, the ones which
allow the user to take photographs and videos, which can then be sent all
over the place. A couple of weeks ago these phones were the centre of a
furore over privacy. It was revealed that they were just the ticket for
snapping stockbrokers on weekend detention at Sydney's Silverwater prison,
and, what's more, the ideal tool for creepy types intent on recording
unsuspecting people in states of partial undress in swimming-pool change
rooms. These applications are undoubtedly disturbing and icky.

This week, however, the public image of camera phones was not only redeemed,
but elevated to the level of secret agent heroism. Former police
commissioner Mick Miller praised the advent of the technology, proclaiming
it a great leap forward in community policing. Members of Neighbourhood
Watch, he suggested, should have such phones to hand at all times. In the
event of witnessing a crime in progress, society's self-appointed sentinels
could not only tip off the cops with a phone call, but also send down a shot
of the blaggards caught in the act.

There are some curious and slippery value judgements in all this. It's
laudable to take phone-photos of people committing a crime, but damnable to
do so after the criminals have been convicted. That, in itself, seems
reasonable, but the logic relies on the dubious certainty that the person
pictured is truly up to no good. From a witness perspective, it's a
hazardous call. The line between being a photographic crime-buster and a
stickybeak perv is perilously thin.

All in all, this type of technology-driven vigilance may well not be worth
the risk. Let's face it, mobile phones already accord users multiple
opportunities to breach civil etiquette, as restaurant diners will readily
attest. Using the damn machines to take surreptitious photos of suspicious
characters loitering with intent to cross the road is just asking for
trouble.

In this age of reality television and clip-shows, such surreptitious
surveillance would, paradoxically, stick out like a rump steak at a
vegetarian banquet. It would be a safer bet to provide people with full-on
video cameras, the bigger the better. Crime-spotters could then introduce
themselves to working thieves as talent scouts for the next series of
Australia Idol. With such an approach, not only would the ne'er-do-wells
answer all questions fully and frankly, but also, with little prompting,
re-enact any parts of the crime that might have been missed.

Mind you, the idea of beefing up Neighbourhood Watch is not in itself
without merit. Let's face it, the more people we have prepared to occupy
their idle hours looking out for others being naughty, the safer we can all
feel. And therein lies the problem: all Neighbourhood Watch members, no
matter how dedicated, have to sleep from time to time. It is then, when the
watchers are in slumber, that the criminal fraternity comes out to wreak
havoc.

The solution to this dilemma, however, is easy and, for an organisation such
as the police, cost efficient. I'm talking, of course, about amphetamines. A
modest yet constant supply from confiscated stocks would ensure that all
Neighbourhood Watch participants are in a state of heightened alertness 24
hours a day, every day of the week. Given a sufficient amount over a long
enough period, it's a sure bet that the number of crimes reported would
increase enormously, and probably include several types of misdemeanour
never before recognised as such.

Another possibility for improving the efficiency of the service is to make
membership of Neighbourhood Watch a prerequisite for anybody wishing to own
a handgun. This may sound drastic, but it is, in fact, a direct analogue of
the double standard regarding camera-phones. If using a telephone to commit
a crime is bad, but using one to prevent a crime is good, then the same must
apply, surely, to Glocks.

Even just a trial scheme for these ideas would produce a measurable decrease
in the amount of lawlessness about the place. Few would-be burglars are
likely to be dissuaded from breaking and entering because of the possibility
of being seen by a little old lady holding a mobile. Many more would think
twice, however, if said little old lady was likely to be twitchy and
half-crazed by amphetamine psychosis and packing some serious
nine-millimetre heat.

It's a radical proposal, I know, but one sure to pay dividends in the long
run. If we're going to curb crime, we don't need more snazzy
telecommunications. We don't need blurry photographs beamed across the
internet. We need drugs, and we need fire-power. And then we can all rest
easy in our beds.

 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/04/1057179150970.html

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save up to 80% on top-quality inkjet cartridges and get your order fast!
FREE shipping on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. Shop at Myinks.com!
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/v2G7ND/KfUGAA/ySSFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/