3 ms·
> Saving more data instead of less, just in case, seems sensible, and not overly-permissive at all. Sloppy cache-invalidation of data has led to huge problems
by danso 7y ago
> Saving more data instead of less, just in case, seems sensible, and not overly-permissive at all.
Sloppy cache-invalidation of data has led to huge problems for public life, even when it comes to actual criminal records and arrest records [0]. You have no issue with someone's non-criminal social data being gathered under broad search terms, stored for an indefinite amount of time, and associated with your identity without your knowledge by a law enforcement agency?
[0] https://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/16/news/nation/when-your-criminal-past-isnt-yours-background-check-errors-have-devastating-consequences/ https://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/16/news/nation/when-your...
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/haunted-by-the-past-a-criminal-record-shouldnt-ruin-a-career/388138/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/haunted...
- deogeo 7y agoSure I have issues - but these are murder investigations. Keeping track of who might be associated with the victim is the bare minimum of investigating. Giving this data to others as part of a background check is a whole different matter. That involves the police making an official statement about you. Of course that should ideally involve a lot more due diligence to make sure the information is correct, and limits on what they can share.