Comment by simoncion

> ...or at the very least coerce otherwise unruly citizens into compliance based on the belief that it is able to do so.

I would argue that that day is already here, and has been for quite some time. (What makes this worse is that some agents of the State also believe that they have this capability, which results in profoundly unjust and substantially damaging results.)

> ...it's not inconceivable that machine learning may eventually allow...

Sure. I agree. It may eventually allow. There's no question about that. The thing is that 'cowl' was referring to the situation right now, not the one in some unspecified distant future.

As to law enforcement policy; as we mechanize [0] our policing and law enforcement, we must put additional constraints on the people who police and enforce the laws to keep the harm they can do to uninvolved innocents to a minimum.

Our laws already recognize the need for this: ask yourself why -in the US states that have such laws- nonconsensual audio recording of telephone (and other such) conversations is not permitted, but taking notes by hand is always acceptable. [1]

[0] Electronic machines are machines, too, you know!

[1] "You can't prove that someone took notes by hand, so it's pointless to try to stop it." is not a counterargument... you can't prove that unless you find the notes, just as you can't prove that someone recorded the audio of the conversation without finding the recording.