> Such an increase in capability turns the whole principle > of policing on its head. Another way of looking at this is that we're getting a computer-assis

> Such an increase in capability turns the whole principle > of policing on its head. Another way of looking at this is that we're getting a computer-assisted regression back to the historical norm. If I lived in a small village I'd probably be waived through a breathalyzer checkpoint, as it would be well known that I don't drink. Similarly the local cops would know who's acting suspiciously in a manner similar to the subject of the article, and would have pulled him over via traditional policing methods. > [...]That's what you get when you start with the assumption > that everybody is guilty. I think there's a clear line to be drawn between systems being discussed here, which are inferring things about your behavior in public, v.s. the more slippery slope of Minority Report-style thoughtcrime. > [...]so I'd like to close with a link to an article about[...] Thanks, yeah I'm quite familiar with them. I'll just note that there's a bit of a prevailing difference in philosophy between the US & European perspective on this. I happen to like the American one better in principle, but whenever I visit policing seems to be more intrusive in everyday life as a practical matter. So I'm not interested in continuing the argument. I'll only note that at the start of this thread I raised a question that's entirely orthogonal to this. I.e. whether you agree with (to use your words) the "assumption of guilt" or not, it seems like an odd hill to die on to claim that such a system (or lack of one) is injust if it's not equally rolled out to the entire population, and all socioeconomic groups.