[alexqgb]

Asking people how they would legislate while in the grip of rare but extreme emotional distress tends to produce the kinds of law that grievously undermines the sorts of open democracies that are - generally speaking - far safer, healthier, and more peaceful than those in which this kind of manipulative fear-mongering drives policy making.

[Exhibit A] The Patriot Act. [Exhibit B] "Freedom Pats" by the TSA. [Exhibit C] Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit D] Retroactive Immunity for Warrantless Wiretapping. [Exhibit E] Suspension of habeas corpus.

Do you really need me to go on?

And about your neighbor: you say the "only proof" was provided by telcom records. But does that mean this was the only evidence available? Or was this the only evidence the police actually gathered? Specifically, how do you KNOW that, in the absence of this resource, the police would not - and could not - have realized that the story about the stolen car was a lie?

[jakubmal]

Specifically, because they get rid of the car very quickly and it was never found.

But I want to ask you about something. And please don't downvote me.

I believe that 6 months of keeping data about calls/ips/others is reasonable approach. If you're not commiting any crimes, only situation when it might be harmful is some kind of political situation. But then, I'm sure you can provide other means of communication. So what is this actually about?

Listen guys, I just want to know, so no flames, no downvoting please.

[alexqgb]

If that's what you believe, fine.

The sketchy thing is supporting your (presumably well-considered) position with manipulative appeals to un-reason. The "how would YOU feel if [insert random horror here] happened to you or your loved ones?" tactic is one of the worst examples going. Using it is a good reason for downvoting.

The whole point of policy making is to get beyond the (obviously) tortured perspective of a few unfortunates, and ask if the kind of strong emotional reaction these stories provoke will actually lead to sensible policy.

The less likely the actual horror is, the more likely the answer is 'No.' It's just as likely that those closest to the horror will reject this sober and well-considered response, and start spreading hysteria and fear instead, while totally ignoring any negative side-effects that get included in the more rational assessments they're trying to undermine.

By the way, being "close to the horror" doesn't necessarily mean being a victim. It can also mean being in a position to profit from hysterical over-reactions. When this starts to happen, you really start to see the Shirkey Principle in action. Namely, "every institution will seek to preserve the problem for which it is the solution."

[wriq]

"If you're not commiting any crimes..."

That line of thinking has been used to stomp out liberties since before this type of technology event existed. It's also ineffective in that anyone planning a crime can easily circumvent such measures and even use them to their advantage.

* edit: grammar

[shock]

Would you allow me to install video cameras in your home to record what you do? I promise I would delete the recordings after a 6-24 month period.

If you wouldn't, why not? Do you have something to hide?

[Yes, I know this is rhetorical]