Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in pl

Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in play dictate how long that CCTV can be held. So imagine in your fine example that you later in life end up with the police taking your DNA for something else, even if to eliminate your DNA from forensics upon an aggravated burglary at your partners flat as an example. The police computer then pings about the previous alleyway crime and this is years later. You now find that proving were you actually was back then, harder than more recently. CCTV from a bar you was at - all gone due to data protection retention laws that curtail how long it can be held. Google - nope as some law came in that stops them keeping that info. You kinda get down to the situation that your only assured safety from past and future crimes is to self monitor and track. Heck - I literally bug my own house and carry a tracking monitor due to tangent issues, to protect me from such mistakes/abuse etc. ALso having done Jury duty, it's not just the evidence and opinion of guilty or not, but how that evidence is presented and the impact of the dominant alpha's in that jury. Whilst that should not be a factor for the most enlightened (general makeup of posters upon these forums), the population has few discriminators upon the makeup of juries - age, not below average IQ and criminal record or mostly - lack of. So privacy laws are great and have many upshots, they can equally have some downsides. Why I feel that choice should be down to individuals and sure, opt-out by default. But you can start to see why opt-in also helps, so you can clear things up in a timely manner and not suddenly 15 odd years later get arrested for a crime you did not commit and the quick simple proof has long gone, making innocence much harder to play out.