zlacker

A murderer would like to hide their location history from civil justice authorities. We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

A lot of ongoing evidence is based on timestamped written communication. Including for the 1/6 indictment, here you could argue what constitutes as "right" or "wrong".

>>hacker+(OP)
What’s more important? Catching every murderer, or protecting the vulnerable from abuses of power?

Murder is reprehensible, and I agree that all efforts to catch murderers should be expended. But not at the cost of allowing those in power to abuse their power for personal gain, and retain their power, at the expense of others.

Abuses of power are far more common, and in aggregate far more harmful to society, than murder is. Obviously murder is incredibly harmful to those murdered, but if we’re gonna use that to justify privacy invading powers, then why stop there? Cars kills far more people that murderers, a person killed by a car or human is still just as dead. So why not ban all cars?

>>hacker+(OP)
> We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

With or without a warrant?

Meanwhile, surveillance increases as the number of unsolved crimes goes up. Coincidence?

Focusing on SIGINT while ignoring HUMINT is a terrible strategy.

>>hacker+(OP)
A murderer can leave his phone at home. Meanwhile some data broker will sell some random person's, who just happened to be nearby, location history to the cops.

>>hacker+(OP)
> We often argue the cons but not the pros of being able to trace history.

Do we? Ad tech and social media have successfully convinced everyone to give up all notion of privacy if they are anywhere near a computing device with internet