3 ms·

Interesting story and his method is effective. However it is not efficient, he can only track one guy a day, possibly a week.

• swalsh 9y ago
  When he catches a guy he saves the company tens of thousands of dollars. He only needs to catch one guy a week for it to be economically feasible to use his time. By the time they give him the case, there had already been a number of red flags.
  • isostatic 9y ago
    However automation will allow everyone claiming this sort of beenfit on insurance to be automatically followed, evidence automatically gathered, and perhaps a minimum wage flunky in India to give it a once over before the automated summons is sent. The cheat will be caught far sooner, and the PI will be out of a job. Of course those who aren't cheating will also be caught, as the cameras identify people who look very similar, and the courts listen to how the camera has a 1 in a million chance of being wrong (therefore will identify 350 people in the US as being the same person). It's DNA evidence problems all over again.
• wiz21c 9y ago
  His methods are efficient under the constraint of "not resorting to mass surveillance". I'd feel better if that constraint continued to exist.
  • pythonaut_16 9y ago
    I think that's the point they're trying to make. It's already easy to track someone down but it requires manpower, which limits the scope of tracking and requires the tracker to have a real motivation. What's scary about mass surveillance is tracking of anyone and everyone for any reason at any time with very little required effort.