[stormcrowsx]

So we shouldn't collect data that might help solve a major crime because someone might commit a minor crime like stalking?

We're trading the potential to solve a major crime for the potential for a minor crime of stalking to happen. As long as we require that a warrant be involved in getting the data and there are punishments in place for accessing without a warrant I'd feel safe with them collecting it.

[canadian_voter]

"Minor crimes" like stalking can lead to major crimes like murder. There are 2 major issues here:

1) The information might be used "off-label" for all sorts of personal and political reasons. There are countless examples of this in history.

2) The standard of evidence must remain high. Circumstantial evidence has been, and continues to be, used to convict innocent people of crimes. Giving the authorities what amounts to a mountain of circumstantial evidence could allow them to build a case out of thin air.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must be guilty: he entered the bar two minutes after the victim, and left a minute after they did. He took an Uber along the same route and exited at the same address. 3 minutes later the murder weapon was purchased by a man matching his description a block away." ... and so on.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu (disputed, but classic)

Imagine what can be done with a lifetime of data from hundreds of sensors?

[stormcrowsx]

1) Which is why the data shouldn't be accessible without a warrant and there should be stiff punishments if it is accessed without one. We shouldn't stop all the other advances that come from the technology of these sensors and the help they could provide in solving very real crimes.

2) There's already plenty of avenues for circumstantial evidence already, this is the reason we have lawyers and judges to argue over and prevent evidence that isn't solid