>But the existence of such capabilities can be a net negative
And that's the problem with the pro-privacy side. Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative. They argue theoretic harm against actual real world benefit. When that's not a winning argument they lament the existence of the real world benefit instead of re-evaluating their position.
> Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative.
That's the problem with the majority of these cases, they involve testing the limits of what the government is allowed to do by defending the rights of really bad people whom most people have zero sympathy for.
I don't really expect the DEA to serve a no-knock warrant on my residence because Amazon currently thinks I'm a pot grower (due to buying a bluetooth thermometer which is apparently popular with actual pot growers) but if the government had All The Data I'm actually a pretty low risk for a bad bust once you input it all into the PreCrime2000™ algorithm.
I personally feel its the responsibility of the people who wish to erode our civil rights to prove the net benefit far outweighs the protections currently we enjoy as a direct result of British colonial abuses -- which, IMHO, is all the argument you need since the Bill of Rights wasn't created out of thin air for some idealized perfect society to strive for.
> provides little evidence that it is a net negative.
The negatives of a state that becomes powerful and evil have been thoroughly demonstrated in, for example, the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea and many other times/places.
>the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent.
Keep in mind that death penalty cases get a disproportionate level of attention and process and ought to be the least erroneous.
In many lesser cases people are threatened with sentences that are many times more punitive than the average perpetrator receives in order to inspire them to take a plea deal for a sentence that is merely life ruining instead of life ending.
Wrongful convictions in these scenarios are liable to be much higher than the 4% innocent we murder in public.
In America some jurisdictions are corrupt to a legendary degree. Recent years saw footage of both one corrupt cop staging a scene after murdering a citizen and another literally caught on his own body cam planting drugs during traffic stops.
Countless other examples abound and I omit them only for brevity.
Tech like facial recognition, geo fence warrants, and fishing expeditions that begin with search queries are inherently designed to cast a broad net that criminals will increasingly avoid to the degree possible by you know using VPNs, not googling stuff you plan to set on fire, not googling how to whack your wife etc, not bringing your phone to the crime. Whereas criminals will do the minimal work required to avoid scrutiny it will continue to pull in normal people who will be threatened with decades in prison in order to steal mere years of their lives.
Logically exploratory usage of new techniques is liable to be carefully considered to establish useful precedents. Pretending that American cops would plant drugs but wont imprison black folks that happened to walk down an adjacent street in the 3 hour window where we think the rape happened seems disingenuous.
Its like looking at 50s cars through currently informed eyes and saying we need to see twisted bloody metal before we prove that seat belts are necessary.
And that's the problem with the pro-privacy side. Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative. They argue theoretic harm against actual real world benefit. When that's not a winning argument they lament the existence of the real world benefit instead of re-evaluating their position.