[thingymajig]

If you want to completely eradicate crime one way to do it would be to completely eradicate privacy.

Would you sacrifice your privacy if it could eliminate child pornography? The theory is hard to say no to, but in practice that kind of power has never worked out. If we want to retain privacy we have to accept some amount of crime going unnoticed.

[taberiand]

Such a premise begs the question that those given the power would sincerely use it to shutdown child exploitation and other crime.

It seems to me that there are many instances where child exploitation is ignored when it is politically convenient such that giving up our privacy wouldn't be of benefit to society, and would be largely to our detriment.

[kabacha]

You somehow imply that it's impossible to get rid of crime without getting rid of privacy which is an absurd claim.

Finally if you take a look at pure math - most of worlds suffering, evil and death is inflicted by world's governments. You'd put your trust in that over individuals?

[thingymajig]

I won't just imply it, I'll say it too: It's impossible to stop ALL crime while also retaining privacy.

I also said in my (very short) comment that such an extreme level of power never works out in practice. So we need to accept that as long as privacy exists, some amount of crime will. We can't eliminate privacy without giving someone too much power.

[sudosysgen]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That is the issue.

[eanzenberg]

This is a general debate either for or against more government. It’s why the libertarian movement is closely related to open source, free speech, encryption and bitcoin.