How are they supposed to do this exactly? The car could be through a chop shop and onto a container before the theft is even reported to the police.
Where is this confidence that you can do their job coming from?
Where is this confidence that you can do their job coming from?
I don't think the actual accusation is that the police are incompetent, but rather that this can't possibly be the real goal of such a law, because there are approaches to stopping such crimes which are not only far less invasive, but also easier and more practical. So this is at best an excuse, and at worst a justification that the commenter came up with that the actual policy makers never even mentioned (I have seen the latter far too often).
Stolen cars aren’t the only criminal activity. They engage in other activities as well. I just used it as an example.
I'm fine with increased costs if it means saving our privacy in communication.
And you wouldn't need to scan every container, some sampling % would be sufficient.
From what I understand, this what happens currently and allows stolen cars to pass through
If not, begin a proper investigation and start collecting that information. I'm generally against KYC regulations, but a limited and targeted investigation seems appropriate here.
I have confidence that the organization is completely dysfunctional. In which case it's probably more productive to raze it to the ground and build it anew than to try to fix it. Especially if your idea of "fix it" involves "give them power to breach chat privacy of every citizen".
A randomly initialized police force would outperform the baseline of "sorry, we somehow can't stop criminals from stealing those huge, serialized cars, and shipping them out of our extremely isolated island country - now give us more privacy breaching powers!"
Even if you gave them those privacy breaching powers? They'll just use them to jail more people for things they said on Twitter.
I never said it was though.
I find it hard to believe that it's easier to force surveillance on all these innocent citizens than it is to fine a few shipping companies that haven't done their due diligence.
If they're trying to save money on boots-on-the-ground I think they might be in for a surprise with how much manual effort it takes to find the needles in the massive haystack they want to build, and then to actually put all those needles together enough to build a case worthy of prosecution.
They think they understand step 1 and don't seem to be aware of the fact that there are quite a few more (expensive and complicated) steps that must follow to make this _actually_ useful.
I'm a little bit biased, however, as I've been on the wrong end of law enforcement's complete ineptitude as it relates to interpreting metadata into suspicion of crime. The size of the haystack they're trying to create is of such a size that the number of needles they find would become a haystack on its own.
In one way this would mean that Chat Control would be ineffective. But in the same way it would mean that a whole lot more innocent folks would have their lives turned upside down due to false positives. That is not a good solution.
It's reasonably hard to catch bike thieves if they've just stolen a random bike. It's completely trivial if they stole a bait bike that you've loaded with hidden GPS trackers.