[komali2]

I found that part lacking as well, but then I remembered that it's not the protocol's job to solve crime. As matrix indicated in their opening statement, to try to solve for the .1% could irrevocably damage the 99.9.

It's not like law enforcement doesn't have options. I'll use cp as an example. Off the top of my head they could host honey pots and social engineer their way towards cp content creators, analyse cp media for artifacts that could lead them to a location. Legislators could create laws that throttle human trafficking by ending drug wars, opening borders, and providing universal social services. Etc.

But to drag an algorithm into this is the wrong approach for the reasons matrix listed.

[ricksharp]

I agree, I think crime fighting requires tools that operate at the user level.

So an infiltration bot: We have the technology today (gpt-3 level dialog) that could infiltrate criminal social networks, gather evidence, build credibility and power, and then help shut everything down.

The system itself cannot provide this, but an ai-human actor could.

Of course, this technology is scary: What I think is not a crime - like complaining about the government - is a crime in other places.