[117035] in Cypherpunks
Re: Project: Hardening Crypto Against Big Brother's "Black
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Wed Aug 25 15:51:14 1999
Message-Id: <4.1.19990825122901.00ba6320@popserver.com21.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:32:37 -0700
To: Petro <petro@suba.com>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
In-Reply-To: <v04205502b3e8b9a097f7@[216.112.5.39]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
At 02:08 PM 8/24/99 -0700, Petro wrote:
>____
>There are already laws about schemes of this sort. People with summer
>lake cottages tend to have problems with locals who can't stand the
>temptation of unoccupied residences. To deal with the frustration of
>persistent break-ins some absentee owners resort to 'Rube Goldberg'
>trigger devices to punish the scofflaws. Much to their consternation,
>though, they tend to lose civil (and even criminal) cases to the
>failed perpetrator who gets injured (or killed and his dependents
>sue).
>_____
>
> I was wondering though--what if one were to use "less that
>lethal" means? like a setup that if you pulled the case off your
>machine, the room gets flooded with nitros oxide so the "agent"
>passes out--hopefully long enough for you to get home, find him
>passed out, rough him up, and call the police and Newspapers...
>
> You'd also have to do something about locking him IN the room
I think I posted something about this a week or so ago. "Indescriminate
weapons" are illegal, but with all the recent automated video
identification technology coming on tap its quite possible that an
automated threat assessment system could be created that had sufficient
descrimination to use force (even lethal force in the case of "hot
entries," especiall warrentless ninja jobs) and pass judicial muster.
--Steve
