Comment by nickslaughter02

These things won't magically boost populace's knowledge. People are born every day and they don't know anything. Each year the burden of things you need to know to be an adult increases. The populationbon general will not get hands on with something optional.

> Public Unix server will get a Reissanance.

That server is going to get a detection order and then the operators have to spy against their own users. This is in the chat control bill.

> Do you have some issue that in Denmark its deemed solvable only through that?

No. On the contrary, our crime rates are some of the lowest in the world.

At the same time, proponents have said that the whole idea of the database is to detect people with suspicious behavior.

Also, this is still nothing like getting a warrant to a wire tap - any suspicion will reveal YEARS of private information about you to the investigators. Furthermore, knowing that this can be used to identify suspects, surely it will have an effect on peoples behaviors.

They propose to include health records! What if you like to read about bomb making out of curiosity, have a relative who is in jail for violence, and you start seeing a psychiatrist? How many boxes have to be ticked before a flag is raised, and how is that going to affect what you tell the psychiatrist about how you really feel?

I also don't trust the police to not make mistakes or behave unethically enough to be comfortable with this. Denmark is not a very corrupt country, but we still see misuse of power. Just recently it was revealed how a police handler explicitly instructed an informant to lie in court and frame someone else, just so the handler could keep his source. Are these the kind of people who should have access to my search history and health data? No fucking thanks.

How do you prevent a misuse or switching to "let's just start looking into this without warrant until this popular issue(i.e. immigrants, USA, Russia, religios tensions, ethnic tensions) is solved" when the next political crisis hits?

See recent article [1] about a municipality (?) violating its own law and state law to share surveillance data (license plates) with almost 300 agencies.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44747091

Once you have collected the data it won’t be uncollected, to paraphrase Pink Floyd, when the right one walks out of the door.

Information recorded will always have the temptations and tendencies to be misused. Might happen slowly, but over time they would find more and more reasons to get a warrant and at some point some hapless judge will just hand them out like daily business.

Experience shows, that humans cannot be trusted to remain vigilant forever.

There is no reason to believe it wouldn't eventually be used to generate leads as opposed to needing a warrant to sift through.

It is pretty damning, that this lower sentencing for the rich or powerful happens over and over again all around the world. Usually one would expect judges to do their job, but it seems at a certain level many of them lose their ability to make everyone equal before the law.

Maybe what we need are machines to calculate sentences. I am intentionally not saying AI. I mean stupid simple machines, where you input raw facts and each wrongdoing has a coefficient assigned to it, that modifies the sentence. Someone embezzled so and so much money? OK money times factor. Someone didn't reveal their side income as a politician? OK plus coefficient so and so. Just really dumb machines or programs that add up and their result is the sentence, period. No wriggling, no bs, no nothing.

But I guess that would just move the problem to "Who inputs the crimes into the machines?" and then they would cheat their way out of trouble there. It's all so maddening.

You speak as if there is a perfect equivalence between morality and law, and that every action that can be done to increase the rate at which crimes are solved is a good thing. I think that is a bit simplistic and naive.

Do you see any drawbacks with giving our authorities total information about you me and everybody else?

Perhaps potential for misuse?

Because as I understand the world, the people who hold the most power are generally not the best people.

What do you plan to do when definitions of crime start getting fuzzy? Crime is not just petty crimes where it's a clear cut to tell if someone did something bad in definitive terms.

Other crime types exist that are crime only within a structure. The crime of sharing copyrighted files is a crime within a framework of intellectual rights but then training AI on the same files and and producing alternative files bypassing the IP is not a crime. Then you get into political crimes, i.e. it can be a crime to deny the Armenian genocide, denying the Jewish genicide and protesting against the extermination of the Palestinians at this very moment. It can be crime to hide from the US embassy that you are not completely in support of extermination of Gaza people. Your government might cut a deal to save Greenland from US invasion that makes certain things a crime that the current US administration doesn't like.

This all can change as politics evolves. Do you intend to support whatever the current position the current government has?