[M3L0NM4N]

I mean, surveillance reduces crime. Wherever you fall on the spectrum of surveillance/privacy, I can guarantee if the government read everything everyone wrote/texted/read and recorded their every move, there would be less crime.

[menus]

Great to know that. I'll let the parents of Uvalde know how surveillance reduced crime on the 1 year anniversary of the school shooting.

Surveillance does not reduce crime, tending to people's basics needs so that they don't need to commit crimes reduces crimes.

[xp84]

Is a subpoena of 5 specific users' data, presumably with the purpose of getting evidence about things that already happened, the same as 'surveillance'?

> the government read everything everyone wrote/texted/read

is this really a relevant analogy for this? And yes, I've heard of the mass surveillance via telco that we did find out (through Snowden) was happening, and do think it seriously crossed the line. I'm just wondering if this kind of case at issue has anything in common with that malfeasance at all.

Is it your belief that they lacked any probable cause and are actually trying to persecute those 5 people for some reason?

Rather than try to argue against a position I'm not fully understanding, I'd like to hear how you think police should solve crimes with a significant "cyber" component.

[M3L0NM4N]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for it. But if people couldn't use the internet/communications to plan or communicate criminal activities, crime would reduce (to some degree, meaningful or not).