I actually do not think that is a better argument.
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that we should make the argument that searching everything will result in less effective law enforcement because there will be so much more data that we will miss more things.
If this were true, then it would be an excellent argument -- rather like the argument against using torture in interrogations because it actually does a WORSE job of getting people to tell you (true) information than other techniques. This is in addition to the argument against torture that claims that torture is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it.
I think that invading everyone's privacy without a warrant and without any good REASON to suspect an individual ("reasonable and articulable suspicion") is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it. But I do NOT also believe that invading everyone's privacy will reduce the number of criminals caught. I actually think it would be quite effective at catching criminals. The massive amount of data available would be create more work, but investigators would spend time only on people they had vague inarticulable reasons to suspect, and this would be quite efficient. For instance, if you focused just on black males age 17-29 and combed through every email or electronic communication they had ever made, I am sure you could find tens of thousands of felonies -- but such a process would be profoundly unfair. In addition, you can use computers to search through the giant haystacks very efficiently.
Comments
I actually do not think that is a better argument.
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that we should make the argument that searching everything will result in less effective law enforcement because there will be so much more data that we will miss more things.
If this were true, then it would be an excellent argument -- rather like the argument against using torture in interrogations because it actually does a WORSE job of getting people to tell you (true) information than other techniques. This is in addition to the argument against torture that claims that torture is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it.
I think that invading everyone's privacy without a warrant and without any good REASON to suspect an individual ("reasonable and articulable suspicion") is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it. But I do NOT also believe that invading everyone's privacy will reduce the number of criminals caught. I actually think it would be quite effective at catching criminals. The massive amount of data available would be create more work, but investigators would spend time only on people they had vague inarticulable reasons to suspect, and this would be quite efficient. For instance, if you focused just on black males age 17-29 and combed through every email or electronic communication they had ever made, I am sure you could find tens of thousands of felonies -- but such a process would be profoundly unfair. In addition, you can use computers to search through the giant haystacks very efficiently.