[Kiro]

All of the above. I don't think it's sensitive and I think the risk is negligible but even if it happened I still think it's worth it. Like I said in my sibling comment I'm against mass-surveillance in general because then you have no choice but here I'm actively deciding to expose myself because I find the utility worth it.

[mcny]

I agree.

We talk about the "identity theft" problem here quite a bit. One time someone wrote about how there is no such thing as identity theft. If someone persuaded a bank to give them money by pretending it was me, the thief didn't steal anything from me. The bank gave the thief money and should try to recover it themselves. I'm not a part of that equation.

I think it is stupid to establish any kind of causality based on the things I search online or the things I do on the computer. The problem isn't that Amazon is recording my activity. The problem is that somehow we allow this to be admissible in a court of law. My shower thoughts don't make me a criminal. I'm innocent until proven guilty. Searching for nitroglycerine or whatever is not the same as the proverbial trout in cow milk that prosecutors claim to be. What's next? Private diaries as evidence that I killed someone?

Edit: spelling

[blattimwind]

> What's next? Private diaries as evidence that I killed someone?

Well if your diary contains perpetrator's knowledge then obviously yes? Even if not, it may count as circumstantial evidence.

[mcny]

I anal but in my not so humble opinion it can at best establish motive not that I did it.

I've been hearing recently about how the forensic "science" we allow in the court room isn't all that scientific either. I think our law enforcement and our prosecutors are just too lazy. I'd not mind so much if they let criminals free but it seems they will try to frame someone who is plausible and let "science", "evidence", and "experts" do the talking which is not good.

I think we should provide proper incentives for our prosecutors. We clearly can't lean on their moral compass.