I was talking about the world view that appears to underpin his opinions - not specifically what he was trying to say in the article. So what if 'symmetric exp

I was talking about the world view that appears to underpin his opinions - not specifically what he was trying to say in the article. So what if 'symmetric exposure to information is not equivalent'? If the net result is benefit then isn't that a good thing? By net result I mean i.e. net result = gain/disadvantage for cop + gain/disadvantage for non-cop His argument is that a smaller gain for members of the public plus a larger gain for cops if somehow bad. But if both parties gain what is the problem? Well if you don't really believe that extra 'value' can be created in the world (zero sum game) then you don't see it as both parties gaining. You view it as one party gaining value (power) at the expense of another. This appeared to be the assumption he was making.