3 ms·

I must say I'm on the fence about such databases, because I realize how law enforcement and social services can benefit from increased cooperation and having an

by mar77i 7y ago

I must say I'm on the fence about such databases, because I realize how law enforcement and social services can benefit from increased cooperation and having an idea how person might behave when they're stressed out, ie. when police confronts them. In Switzerland we had several scandals in the previous century about political and social tracking that police implemented without governmental oversight, and since the law has actually "caught up" under the banner of keeping up with trouble-makers at soccer games, tracking mechanisms now appear regulated to some degree - making room for nuance, hopefully. From that perspective it doesn't come as a complete surprise that law enforcement first comes up with the idea, then gets reprimanded and then due process is put into place while letting police do their work, because, let's be real here, that's what they're trying to do, not implement an Orwellian dystopia. I wonder how much jumping to that accusation helps in this kind of discussion, even though I'm all for sensitizing law enforcement on these topics.

jonathanstrange 7y ago
For the reasons I've laid out, I see no reason whatsoever why law enforcement should use or have any such technology at all. If at all, this kind of technology should be used by social workers, maybe even under some additional protection and oath of confidentiality like lawyers and doctors have. That way, I could see some real beneficial crime prevention effects. However, the idea that potential troublemakers and delinquents might freely talk to the police and therefore "get on the right path" in their life seems hilariously naive and far from reality. If you look at what police patrols have to deal with on a daily basis - a lot of it is related to alcohol abuse and mental health -, then you have to conclude that the police is mostly the wrong authority to deal with these problems. This is not just my assessment, it's actually very common for the police themselves to demand that other state authorities should do more about problems of mental health, alcohol abuse, and domestic abuse. Most of the time, the police neither has the training, nor the authority, nor the time to deal with these problems adequately, and they openly talk about this in interviews.
- DanBC 7y ago
  You've just converted the risk from "could be convicted of a crime if the state can prove that beyond all reasonable doubt" into "could lose their children if the state can prove it on the balance of probabilities", which feels worse to me.
  - mar77i 7y ago
    ...isn't that how Alex Jones got rid of his kids' custody?

by mar77i 7y ago

jonathanstrange 7y ago

For the reasons I've laid out, I see no reason whatsoever why law enforcement should use or have any such technology at all. If at all, this kind of technology should be used by social workers, maybe even under some additional protection and oath of confidentiality like lawyers and doctors have. That way, I could see some real beneficial crime prevention effects. However, the idea that potential troublemakers and delinquents might freely talk to the police and therefore "get on the right path" in their life seems hilariously naive and far from reality. If you look at what police patrols have to deal with on a daily basis - a lot of it is related to alcohol abuse and mental health -, then you have to conclude that the police is mostly the wrong authority to deal with these problems. This is not just my assessment, it's actually very common for the police themselves to demand that other state authorities should do more about problems of mental health, alcohol abuse, and domestic abuse. Most of the time, the police neither has the training, nor the authority, nor the time to deal with these problems adequately, and they openly talk about this in interviews.

DanBC 7y ago
You've just converted the risk from "could be convicted of a crime if the state can prove that beyond all reasonable doubt" into "could lose their children if the state can prove it on the balance of probabilities", which feels worse to me.
- mar77i 7y ago
  ...isn't that how Alex Jones got rid of his kids' custody?