Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Rape (A Solution)
Message-ID: <1669@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 13:48:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1669
Posted: Thu Aug  1 13:48:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 15:23:07 EDT
References: <25100002@smu> <25100003@smu>
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 85

> 
> Second of all, the video camera system does not have to be run by
> the government.  It is conceivable that a real estate syndicate might
> purchase a large amount of real estate in a given neighborhood where
> prices are greatly depressed due to a high crime rate.  They might
> install and monitor the cameras to make a profit from selling the
> real estate or renting it out at a higher value than expected.
> 
> It is possible that some neighborhoods might be left free of the
> cameras for the benefit of those who find the thought of a camera
> looking at them more disturbing than the thought of being a crime
> victim.  Other neighborhoods and work areas would be fitted with the 
> video cameras for the benefit of those who feel the opposite.

In my parents' apartment building they use somewhat similar technology.
The way this has been implemented is that anybody with a TV can tune in
to a particular channel at any time and see who is going in and out of
the building.  The idea which is good, is to give people the opportunity
to check who they are letting in.  I think that it is a good idea, but
basically flawed and implemented in a dangerous fashion.  It is flawed
because a lot of people don't bother checking who they let in the building
(some people don't even use their intercom, which is right next to the
button one has to press to let someone in.  Why would they use a TV which
is in the next room, and has to be either turned on or switched channels?).
More importantly I think it is an extremely dangerous idea because it
provides any nut who lives in the building with the technology s/he would
need to watch people and learn their habits (e.g find out which women
often come late and alone).  People like that would probably LOVE to be
able to pick their victims in advance from the confort of their sofa.
There are already enough deranged people who go through the trouble of
picking out their victims by watching them in advance even though they 
don't have sophisticated equipment to help them do it, why provide them
with more?

I know that this is not what you were thinking of, but just remember, any
useful tool like that one can be turned into a weapon, so before choosing
some weapon to defend ourselves it is usually a good idea to make sure
that the dangers associated with the weapon are not greater than the danger
one wants the the weapon to defend one against.
> 
> Issue 3: Many (most) rapes are committed by acquaintances in the home.
> 
> Although rapes by acquaintances is a major component of the total
> number of rapes, women fear rapes by strangers much more.  Thus
> eliminating rapes by strangers would remove the "unwritten curfew"
> that women feel they are under.  Furthermore it would be a substantial
> dent in the total number of rapes.  I understand that for some
> populations of women (e. g. women living in apartments in high crime
> areas), rape by strangers is much greater than 50 percent of all rapes.
> 
Well, I don't know about "most" women, but I certainly fear any kind of
rape about the same.  I do agree with you that it would be nice not to
have to fear that kind of rape anymore, but I think I would feel very 
uncomfartable being watched all the time.

> Issue 4: Rapes on freways, etc.
> 
> One of the problems on many freeways is that there is no emergency
> telephones.  Thus a women whose car breaks down has three choices:
>    1) wait for hours for a police car to come by
>    2) take a chance on a stranger coming by
>    3) attempting to walk to a town/phone

Actually 2) is not as bad as it sounds.  It is quite possible to get
help from strangers without endangering oneself:  simply by lowering 
one's window a tiny bit and asking the stranger to place the call.

Apart from the 1984-ish reasons other people have mentioned, I don't
like your idea because I don't think that it will work.  It is very easy
to disguise oneself to fool a camera (as films from bank robberies show).
It is also quite possible to be menacing without appearing to be by saying
things (would your cameras also record sounds?).  There will always be
places without cameras (how are you going to cover the entire world, or
even all of the US?) that people could go to to commit their crimes, and
it's also not because a crime is recorded on tape that the criminal will
be apprehended.  I personally think that cameras work well in very well-
contained areas like stores, banks, to record very specific crimes, but
that's about it.

Sorry to be so negative.  I think that you are actually sincerely trying
to suggest a good answer, but I really think that the dangers of your
proposed solution far outweigh the benefits.
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie