Steve Saretsky

But that's not a legal barrier.

That's just because there aren't enough resources in the system to help assist on some of those kinds of issues.

And the other problem that I see is that they have really failed to provide effective use cases or evidence about why this is both needed and proportionate.

So I think everybody would agree they want law enforcement to be able to do their job effectively and try to identify criminal activity.

I think, as your question suggests, people would like to see the criminal justice system.

Once that happens, it feels a little bit like an episode of Law & Order.

They want that second half to work effectively too.

But this is at least debating the first half about how do you find the criminals in the first place.

And part of the problem is that much of the evidence they put forward really is inconsistent with

The kind of proposals that are included in the legislation.

Right.

So, you know, they'll say, you know, we we might need to be able to track.

Well, actually, perfect example.

They said if there's a shooting or another violent incident, we want to be able to know who all the all the bystanders who might have been there at a given moment in time.

Now, I find that a little bit of a chilling example to say, to literally acknowledge that what they have in mind is this surveillance map where they can go back in time and figure out who was at a given spot.

Because if you do it for that, you can do it for anything.

Who went to a political rally?

Who went to this?

So I think it raises real concerns on that front.

But the other is, even if you are convinced that this is something worthwhile, there's just no evidence that you need all of this information for a year.