[AnthonyMouse]

> Law enforcement will always be a compromise.

The problem with the compromise argument is that it only ever goes one way. We had certain law enforcement capabilities in 1965 and civilization didn't collapse. Why would we expect it to collapse if they had exactly the same capabilities today?

Whenever this argument is used, it's always to add new invasions. Databases that were never needed before, facial recognition that was never needed before. Why are they suddenly needed now, just because we can? Moving in only one direction over time isn't balance, it's marching toward a cliff. Meanwhile anything that does improve privacy, like encryption, is used as an excuse for new police powers as well.

It isn't necessary for law enforcement to catch everybody. And they wont anyway. Which is fine, because 99% of their purpose is deterring people from committing serious crimes, which they can do well enough without any fancy new technology.

You don't actually have to catch fugitives as long as being a fugitive ruins your life sufficiently that hardly anybody is willing to do it.

[homonculus1]

Today's compromise is tomorrow's status quo. Then a new compromise is needed so the government can solve some new problem that gets headlines precisely because it's as rare as lightning. Rinse and repeat till all our rights are washed away.

[throwaway2048]

part of the issue is technology makes being a criminal more sophisticated too.

If police were limited to 1965 tech, you could see any police car coming miles away due to radar and radio detectors.

[liberte82]

Good.