[brongondwana]

That's a nice theory - but computers exist in the real world. I have a sticker on the back of my laptop from our NYI datacentre which says "there is no cloud, it's just somebody else's computer".

There's also no check and balance the absolutely prevents somebody punching me in the face and ruining my life, but I still walk down busy streets.

If you have a problem with the concept of judges as the arbiter of limits on the powers of law enforcement, I am keen to hear your workable alternative that doesn't have worse downsides.

[wav-part]

You can recover from a punch. You cant undelete your data once it falls on wrong hands and gets used against you (eg debt/purchase history).

As I said there are already enough physical measures (defence, surveillance etc) that can ensure public safety. However If I were to compromise: We can have multiple judges. An order should be vouched by more than one judge. It would be even better if the user can whitelist/blacklist judges to submit. Less bureaucratic liability for the state if data gets leaked/misused.

[brongondwana]

I'm not sure what's more unrealistic, that you can recover from a punch or that it's viable to have per-user judge blacklists...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/teenager-daniel-christie-die...

I guess it's the punch then.

[wav-part]

Ok how does having access to sucker puncher's phone help me here ? I will still die.

[brongondwana]

I think we're talking past each other here. I was pointing out an example of how there's no absolute guarantees that another human being won't mess up your life, not that you need to look at punchers' phones.

[wav-part]

The problem: I am asked to give up privacy. What I am getting in return, I can get more cheapely.

I can avoid sucker punchers. No need to give up privacy. I can avoid going outside a walled garden. No need to give up privacy.

You seem to be saying that its fair trade. I disagree.