If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading?
This thread so far has been entirely about what's the "right amount" of crime to prevent. But if you ask the police how much crime they should prevent and solve, the answer will be "all of it." That's their mission, after all.
The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion?
If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance?
There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.
> If it's a trade off, the question is, what are we trading?
Privacy. That's what this comment thread was about. The privacy implications of storing this data (csmith). Then, when it would be justified to access it if it IS stored for some reason, for what crimes, and how long it would last to address privacy concerns (iak8god). Then I chimed in with some reasoning as to why a somewhat longer retention period might be warranted, and why. Is it unclear there somewhere exactly what we're discussing?
> The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion?
Since when is a discussion about one side saying what they want and then it's over? In an effort to solve more crimes, the police would undoubtedly want a lot of access to data that is kept for a long time. But the other side, the public whose information this is gets a say as well. I, for my part, would argue that if this information is even allowed to be gathered, that if police want access to it there should be strict controls and conditions.
> There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.
There is an answer, or more accurately, many answers. Civil liberties, preventing corruption, privacy, etc. There's a reason police can't detain you indefinitely without charges, why they can't enter your home without cause, why they can't seize your property without cause (and of course, there are exceptions to these which people take offense to, often rightly). Those all make the job of the police harder, but we've tried to strike a balance. It shifts back and forth over time.
> If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance?
What, so we don't talk about it? It's not okay to have the conversation because you think the other argument isn't obvious enough? I'm not really sure your point, because to my eyes, this thread is all about balance. It feels like you're just trying to stifle discussion.
This thread so far has been entirely about what's the "right amount" of crime to prevent. But if you ask the police how much crime they should prevent and solve, the answer will be "all of it." That's their mission, after all.
The police understand how this technology can help them do that. You say 30 days will help solve more crime than 24 hours. Well, they'll say "forever" will solve even more crime than 30 days. End of discussion?
If the subject is "preventing crime," the privacy argument is already lost. So what is the counterbalance?
There has to be a reason we would make it harder for police to do their jobs. What is that reason? To me, that's the hard question, but a lot of people here on HN seem to take it for granted that there is an answer.