> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure. They completely fail to understand that there exists people to whom you cannot grant access and screening people in advance probably impossible. Some cop checks all the boxes, gets access to databases, then their partner leaves them and they are now no longer safe to grant access.

I don’t think it’s naïveté. I think it’s an acceptable byproduct to them. It’s collateral damage in their war on ??? crime? insecurity? or in their lobby kickbacks.

> society is getting increasingly SAFE

This is a great point, and one that really isn't played up because it doesn't fit the whole profit-from-attention narrative that literally every media surface seems to be following.

It almost seems as if law enforcement 'need' these additional tools to keep them busy; find new, more trivial crime that's been hiding behind no one reporting it or being hurt by it.

Maybe if law enforcement resources could be applied to more corporate crime, that'd keep em busy till the cows come home.

Time after time I feel like this is the Luddite path.

Law enforcement can already do incredibly privacy-invading things, and we’re ok with it. House searches (with a warrant), arrests (with probable cause), etc. It’s tightly controlled and can’t be used on a whim.

I feel technology should absolutely be a part of policing, and also tightly controlled, just as these other powers are.

> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works

The real revelation comes when you realize this is not true.

Maybe missing from the debate: the Police officer was using Flock without a warrant as well.

> The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.

Crime rates could be going up, that still wouldn't justify broad, warrantless spying on the public. We have rights and they aren't conditional on crime rates.

> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works, if it's abused, the system isn't locked down enough or that one person circumvented the procedure.

That's being charitable. Complicit is far more likely, any system like that plays to benefit of the ruling party as you can use it to suppress the people that would vote you out.

As a general rule, every policy and system should be designed with the worst possible user in mind.

- German address registers with religious affiliation were a good idea until the Nazis came to power.

- Pegasus spyware was developed and sold to governments to fight terrorism and serious crime — until it was used to spy on journalists, human rights activists and political opponents, including in authoritarian states.

- Rwandan identity cards listed ethnicity for administrative purposes — until militias used them to identify and execute Tutsis at roadblocks during the 1994 genocide.

Bottom line: Even if you trust the current administration (do you?), are you sure you want 5o give that power to all future ones?

Every time anyone is given surveillance tools the same thing happens - we can't just act like it's because LEOs are some type of certain person.

Everyone is missing that the surveillance is the point. It has nothing to do with safety.

> but society is getting increasingly SAFE

It’s such a shame that media (social and traditional) really plays up loss aversion. My local news is basically fear mongering. My local social media page is filled with people who have nothing better to do with their time than complain about all of the negative stuff happening in this town. They take every isolated incident and project it as some major pattern. It’s really sad.

> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works

Some are, others aren't. They just accept it willingly.

Just as in the Purge movies politicians are exempt ;-)

Have you considered the possibility that the politicians know this, and also don’t care?

I think you’re misunderstanding that they think are part of the populace. They do not. They do not think they’re at your level. That’s why they got in the politics. That’s why they’ve been successful at it.

Go spend some time around with police higher ups if you don’t think that they also believe that they’re a class of nobility.

You don’t need to wonder what they are thinking. The Palantir CEO put out a manifesto that spells it out pretty explicitly. He literally says, in plain English, more surveillance on the underclass, less scrutiny on the owning class. This is the prevailing ideology among those in power.

The politicians think they are part of a protected class with the billionaires and corrupt institutions with zero accountability.

We aren't going to see improvement until we make police unions illegal. Police carry enormous power over local governments in this country.

It’s not naivety

Yes, the conclusion is the easy part. But what can we do to make them see it?

If only we could just air gap it.

> Politicians are completely naive in their understand how people works

They understand exactly how people work. You are naive for thinking that they aren't aware of this. Their entire job is essentially a popularity contest in which they promise you things, that they almost never deliver on.

<< The US might be different, I doubt it, but society is getting increasingly SAFE, there is less and less need for these tools.

Oh man, I have to assume you live in a nice little enclave and are reading old statistical reports. I have the misfortune of sometimes having to travel into the city. I can assure you, it is not getting safer. In fact, just last week I saw first sign of Chicago turning into Philly.