4 ms·
"If it takes them 15 years to realise they shouldn't have let someone over the border it is around 14 to 14.995 years too late." Well, hypothetically some old
by hutzlibu 4y ago
"If it takes them 15 years to realise they shouldn't have let someone over the border it is around 14 to 14.995 years too late."
Well, hypothetically some old data could be combined with some new data, to not let a potentially terrorist in NOW (or let them in, but supervised).
So more data to have is definitely useful for the agencies (if they can analyse it and do not drown in data).
And a total surveillance state would be even more effective, but for some reasons people does not want it. Maybe because power abuse is a real thing.
- bushbaba 4y agoI just wish government agencies used data driven decision making vs feelings and intuition more of the time. If there’s data showing a 15 year retention rate is worthwhile. Great. But I have nothing in front of me which states this objectively
- gmadsen 4y agoif there is data suggesting it, it would be classified. the Government isn't in an equal information relationship with the population, nor can it be, to effectively use intel domestically and abroad. just a counter-argument. I am not in favor of this obvious overreach. But I don't need data to tell me that.
- adra 4y agoIf a group had infinite budgets to actually act on this data effectively and if you could actually ever prove that this data was used for said purpose, you're still violating the privacy of 99.999999 of the people who don't commit crimes. I'm all for collecting legitimate warranted wide access information about people with legitimate patterns of criminal behaviour. I'm all about collecting information about financial transactions as one form or another the proceeds of crime are traded into legitimacy in regulated channels (at least for now). I'm not ok collecting "whatever I feel like" for the reason "well because we legally can".