On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Sure, a few crimes might be solved, but a thousand times more would be instigated by identify thieves, spammers, and stalkers. The same concerns apply here to WHOIS or whatever form the RDS may take.
On 2016-08-17 12:25, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
What evidence do you have to support that claim?
Anecdotal mathematics will be able to make that justification ... So whilst the number "1000" is purely a guess, the concept that it would be "more" is sound ... If you start with the simple assumption that a LawEnforcementAgent has a primary task of stopping a Criminal (which ignores the multitude of other roles, tasks, responsibilties and so-on that modern "policing" actually covers) : * there are more people in jail than there are police - therefore there are more crime-committers than crime-stoppers * criminals to crimes is a 1-to-many relationship - there is no magic fairy counting the number of crimes and somehow stopping a criminal at one Ergo, if you introduce something which is equally able to be used to find a criminal and commit a crime, the crime number will always be higher by that reasoning. Whether something should be allowed/restricted/controlled/banned/not-even-made because of either of those 2 "extremes" is the question. I like to think that the %age of people criminals and the %age of people who are lawenforcement is an infinitisimally small number in comparison to the massive amount of people who are neither - thus it is the impact/effect on them (positively or negatively) that matters. Rob