[Mordisquitos]

There was a time, not that long ago, when there was no such thing as Google Location History storing the geographical movements of all Android users by default. Now, in your mind, go back to that time period, and lets say there are elections coming up in your country.

Are you there yet? OK. Now, the manifesto of the candidacies in the upcoming elections is proposing that the location history data of every citizen in your country should be stored in a database, just in case law enforcement needs to know the exact location of any individual at any time to be able to do their investigations. Suppose that their plan to implement it is technologically feasible and requires no additional effort from the citizens.

Would this make you more or less likely to vote for them?

[pbhjpbhj]

I still don't understand this perspective, other than slippery slope povs ('what if the Nazis take over?').

My bank knows everywhere I go (if I spend money). The main mobile phone companies know everywhere I go (in real time, and who with [if they have a phone]). Shops and supermarkets track you around the building by Bluetooth, et cetera.

So, what's the problem if the police get access to this data to solve heinous crimes. I'm not talking the RIP Act (UK, regulatory investigation powers) - which lets a ridiculously broad swathe of people see, eg your internet history - but major crimes ... why not?

To answer your question, as long as the parties had a sound moral basis, supported individual rights, then it wouldn't alter my voting intention. I guess I'm happy to limit the liberty to commit serious crimes.

[yownie]

I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important for the rest of us then.

[AlexeyBelov]

That's not an argument.