There's a legitimate argument to be had about privacy vs. safety. The police need information to investigate crimes, complete privacy means all crimes go unsolved. It should absolutely require the police put in some legwork, law enforcement shouldn't be able to be automated, but where in-between the two extremes you draw the line on this issue is subjective.

I don't want the government to have all the information, and I do want the government to be able to enforce the law. VPN's are probably where I draw the line, private access to information is a red-line for me. Signal chat is a grey area for me, because it is also a means of accessing information but privacy of association is not something I consider to be important enough for the risks to public safety.

[–] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Damn, good thing the internet came along. Crazt how no crimes were ever solved before then, and detectives just sat around hoping people would turn themselves in

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Were they ever solved?

[–] notgold@aussie.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

From page 25 there is crime clearance rates in Australia for the 2 decades before the internet. Looks like crime was solved before the internet existed.

https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/size-crime-problem-australia-january-1987.pdf

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

9/10 murders
3/4 serious assaults
2/3 rapes
1/4 robberies
1/8 burgularies
4/5 car thefts
4/5 frauds

Higher than I thought honestly. I thought it was like 1/4 murders that were solved.

[–] bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

you seem very badly informed in this matter (digital privacy). please do some research, or speak with GPT, even it will tell you you’re convictions are ill founded.

load more comments (2 replies)