Because computers don’t “investigate”, they only collect data. And “all this stuff” is only easier, not better. Even with computers, there is only so much they can do from a chair.
The problem with this is that they would need an “in” with everybody. This means, in effect, investigating 99.9999% of the population who aren’t suspected of wrongdoing. It means them owning data about people which they neither have any right to, and nor can they guarantee the safety of. Nobody said that their job was going to be easy, and for many, sacrificing the rights of the innocent to make their job easy is not worthwhile. It would not be worthwhile even if they could be trusted, and the case for such trust is far from clear.
You save money? No, they save money, while they are already using taxpayer money to do what they are paid for. Their budget have expanded considerably, despite using cheaper methods. All while eroding what little accountability they had. Too bad we can’t see why “cheaper” costs so much more, but it’s “secret”.
For whom, precisely?
I hope you’re as optimistic if they explain that it’s “cheaper” to remotely vaporize you for a suspected offence. There are enough abuses now even with due process.
Every time I see representatives speak, I am perfectly convinced that randomly picking would be better. I’m not saying the average American is smarter than that guy, but they are not any dumber. More than that, the average American is almost certainly vastly less corrupt.
That dumb fuck is what you get when you pick leaders based upon who can make the most promises for money and then pay people to run marketing campaigns to sell their brand. We are literally picking the worst people possible. I honestly struggle to imagine a system that could pick a worse leader other than maybe awarding leadership to the person with the most murders or lowest IQ.
One learns to recognize patterns of fletching, the unique patterns left by various flaking tools and techniques, and of course tracking and the identification of spoor.
You mistake my purpose. I am not arguing whether the FBI has an authentic
case or whether the entire kerfuffle is a scam. I really don’t care. I am
arguing that this poor senator is being characterized as an idiot when, in
fact, his level of argument and logic is equal to that of the head of the
FBI and the CEO of Apple. You can think they are idiots as well for
presenting this technology as a huge crisis/opportunity (although I
actually believe it IS a big deal.). But why single this guy out as some
kind of ignorant mathematically-challenged moron when he’s accurately
representing what our top law enforcement officials and CEO of the largest
company on the planet are also saying? It seems ignorant on the part of the
writer.
