Again you seem to be assuming that most terrorists are using known devices and numbers. While that may have been useful to track the Boston Marathon guys who were rank amateurs (and for the record, it didn't help then). It likely wouldn't be of any use at all for tracking someone important and/or practiced at these sorts of things.
Collecting all of the data from all of the citizens in the US, or any country for that matter, is in fact counterproductive, as it creates a great deal of background noise, drowning out the useful data on the subject of interest (also it is illegal to conduct surveillance of US citizens without a warrant... Not to mention all US citizens without a warrant.) I don't think many people would agree that tracking everyone in the US is useful for tracking 'terrorists'. Unless you are talking about collecting data on every citizen to stop future crime that has not happened yet. If that is the plan, that sort of surveillance might be useful, if say ordinary citizen 9834202 decided to commit a crime at an undetermined future date.
Exactly how is your example useful or pertinent to fighting terrorism/terrorist acts? The politician in your example is a public figure. Unless you considered Osama Bin Laden (and other terrorists) public figures and have access to their " Twitter feeds, blog entries and websites, all of which is all freely available on the internet. " Your comment doesn't make much sense... Or maybe I'm missing the point (which is likely/possible).
I don't understand how LEOs have been trained to be afraid of normal citizens? Do you perhaps mean criminals when you say citizens? I'm struggling to think of any reason a LEO would be afraid of a normal citizen, or any instance in recent memory of a normal citizen's complaint compromising a LEOs position/lively hood.
Your comment might make sense, and the attitude you suggest might be appropriate, if police ever took the initiative to take care of the abuses within their own departments. Unfortunately time and time again its been shown not to happen.
When it takes people like Frank Cerpico to get anything done (at great risk to themselves) the sort of attitude you propose doesn't really cut the mustard.
Agreed! It is indeed an interesting question, and more to the point, it helps to relate this article to the topics relevant to HN. I believe many social issues can be relevant to these boards... But too often they are shouted down with "Why is this on Hacker News?"
Actually there are many benefits to the LEO for having their interactions recorded. The use to the organization when addressing citizen complaints and providing evidence are pretty widely acknowledged. [0]
This isn't just about 'catching cops doing bad'. It is also about having more reliable evidence to use if a complaint or a situation of one person's word against another arises.
The fact that it can also prove wrongdoing by a LEO should be thought of as a side benefit.
None of your other examples have the power to stop, search, imprison other citizens based solely on their word. They are not even functional as counter-examples. How many 'corrupt firefighters' send people to jail for life or shoot someone to death and then get off scott free?
Agreed the main issue is with the system being broken, but the professionals are a part and driving factor of that issue and also deserve at least some of the blame.
Many careers cost a great deal of time and money to get into (the cost of schooling is a huge issue, but a totally different discussion). Most of those careers make no where near the same sorts of salaries as MDs expect to make. The sciences in general have all of the same issues you mention. Doctors make obscene salaries in our current society (though not necessarily historically). It is disingenuous to say that doctors "deserve" these sorts of salaries. Doctors in other countries do not make the same sort of inflated salaries as US Docs. [0]
Again, while I agree that the system in general is broken, it is not sickening to point out that doctor's make obscene salaries.
Collecting all of the data from all of the citizens in the US, or any country for that matter, is in fact counterproductive, as it creates a great deal of background noise, drowning out the useful data on the subject of interest (also it is illegal to conduct surveillance of US citizens without a warrant... Not to mention all US citizens without a warrant.) I don't think many people would agree that tracking everyone in the US is useful for tracking 'terrorists'. Unless you are talking about collecting data on every citizen to stop future crime that has not happened yet. If that is the plan, that sort of surveillance might be useful, if say ordinary citizen 9834202 decided to commit a crime at an undetermined future date.