[Nottingham] Is it theft to be live alive? (Was: Media Centre Linux distro?)

[Jason Irwin]

On 10/05/12 13:23, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> Sadly I can't see that being acceptable. Apart from fuel already being
> heavily taxed! Insured drivers already bear the brunt of costs caused
> by uninsured drivers. What we need is something that makes sure people
> are insured when they should be.
But that's the point, hopefully there would be no more uninsured
drivers.  I never said it was a perfect idea (I rather doubt there is
one) just trying top point out that there are alternatives to total
surveillance.  Heck, put the insurance levy on tyres (bicycle tyres
too).  Same idea, same result, similar issues though.

> If the argument is 'surveillance is inherently bad', I don't think I
> can agree.
Surveillance has a place (e.g. secure facility, safety in a production
plant) but it is not the only answer and IMHO we reach for it too often
these days.  It's like we've become conditioned to let a machine do what
we should do.  Seen an untaxed vehicle?  Report it.  Oh, but wait, no
one likes a snitch; best let Big Brother do it.  I am not saying that's
what you think, but I get a whiff of it in the Zeitgeist.

> But to enforce parking
> restrictions, road tax and insurance, it's got to be a good way to
> keep the costs down for the majority of people. It's surely better
> than a trust based or opt-out scheme.
But is it?  Is it really?  And then we have the very serious risk of
mission creep.  With a non-surveillance based alternative, that problem
simply does not exist.

I don't think I have the answer, but I am pretty sure increasing
surveillance is not it.

-- 
Jason Irwin