[brnaftr360]

This is little more than a band-aid, which will almost inevitably be decried as prejudiced - rightly so. It does not treat the root cause and increases institutional control in a realm where measures are becoming increasingly draconian to scratch out crime. Why increase surveillance, institute predictive crime models, and so on while crippling human rights when it's well within the realm of possibility to actually provide a curative modality over the long run without further compromising privacy?

What if your brand of extremism gets you pinned as a probable criminal? How would you like that? Your search history and your playlist parsed into an AI, the way you move spells criminal. No due process. Would that be good for you?

[melling]

I like how we just went full Minority Report.

No where did I imply that.

[brnaftr360]

"Machine learning, cameras, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfire_locator "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_policing

Even if your proposition isn't initially designed as such, it will almost inevitably trend towards that. Tweaks to optimize sensitivity turn into increasingly thorough surveillance, suddenly the scope grows. Parkinson's law. Viola, our quaint police state is amplified into some chimeric synthesis of 1984 and some other jackbooted caricature. You can find these trends elsewhere, y'know, basically anything the government is allowed to touch. The old adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

Call it slippery slope all you want, it's happened time and time again.

Or we can work to eliminate the egregious discrepancies of wellbeing, and give these people something to work for so their risk analytics aren't weighing zero.