I understand your objections and in fact I mostly agree. So I should qualify some of my prior statements. They should be understood in the context (my context w

I understand your objections and in fact I mostly agree. So I should qualify some of my prior statements. They should be understood in the context (my context when I began this line of thought) of anarcho-capitalist values as expressed in David D. Friedman's book /The Machinery of Freedom/. (By the way, to anyone who read this 1973 book, Uber and Lyft were inevitable; the book was prescient enough that it may still contain gems worth mining.) My goal was to make professional law enforcement less important. I am not quite still an anarcho-capitalist, as after 2004 I began to see a lot of truth in Marx and other anti-capitalist writers. So I'm in a healthy tension that enables me to embrace paradoxes and even hypocrisy. (Anyone not a hypocrite, I suspect either has less than an admirable set of values or is in prison or dead or swiftly heading toward one of those states.) Bottom line, my hunch and hope is that some of us will see that if our goal is safety, we need not always give up freedom for it. There are other ways to achieve some of the goals we've entrusted to the State. Yes, I am aware that with alarmingly increasing frequency the State can compel us to divulge our encrypted evidence and the keys to it. Perhaps there would be more pushback against this if such evidence were to play a greater role. Right now, people tend to say "I have nothing to hide." If everyone had a lot to hide, already recorded and encrypted by default, then I think most of them would push back against 4th amendment violations (in the US; and equivalent protections in other jurisdictions). I am aware that the stupid and the evil will mess things up. I don't know what to do about that. I suspect they'll always be with us. The latter we might reduce in number through greater accountability, through more evidence. The former, I have no idea; our society doesn't really quite have natural selection. I should walk back "24/7" or whatever I said. I was a bit hyperbolic. I think certain types of situations known for being contentious should be recorded routinely by both parties, by default, maybe. That should be normalized, maybe. For instance, in any situation wherein at least one party is required to carry liability insurance, the insurers could compel recording -- maybe. Also, and I am VERY FAR FROM CERTAIN about this, but POSSIBLY even in some instances of sexual encounters, at least where there is not a fully executed (signed, maybe notarized) written agreement, i.e. enthusiastic consent -- possibly, if the tech were sound enough (which should be our goal) these too should be recorded, as a matter of course -- MAYBE.