> As soon as we plan logistics, I plan on contacting UAPD myself. I
>have no problem talking to the police, and have done so many times in the
>past. In my researching of NCIC 2000 I had an informative discussion of
>the raw technical detils of how Tucson is going to comply. I was shocked
>when in the course of one of these discussions the programmer gave me a
>full rundown of network protocols, baud rates, spectrum mode, and the
>types and format of data used on current and future systems. He did that
>after I informed him of my experience in RF electronics, programming and
>network administration. I even got an confirmation that fingerprints and
>photos without arrest are a 4th amendment issue ... And that they are
>looking for a workaround :) My point is this Sharon. You are probably
>right. However I like to think that you can still talk truth to power in
>this society. You may not get an answer, but in some situations,
>suprisingly I did. If I had blown the efforts entirely out of pure
>'logic' I never would have gotten some of the answers I have already
>gotten.
>
> Andrew
>
Far be it from anyone to try to restrain you from spending your own time and resources in this endeavor. Hoever, be warned that your analogy really isn't very good. The officer that is stationed to answer questions at the U. of A., is there because he is the unchallenged "expert," and the presumption is that "his word is law". That is a role that an individual cop and the police department can tolerate. However, the notion that they will participate in a public forum, with cameras rolling, when they are but one of many experts, and at least some of the other experts are likely to vehemently disagree with some of their views, is tantamount to participating in an activity that would "undermining our belief in public authority". When a cop says "jump" the only correct response is "how high," never "well, I was just listening to a lecture on this topic and they said I didn't have to jump."
Craig Bolton