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?

▲

nofriend 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Mightn't it be marginally more productive to put a bit of surveillance in front of the container boats, and require registration for the cars being put on them, then trying to totally eliminate free computing and a free internet stopping all secure communication in order to catch the 1/10000000 messages which regard stealing cars?

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).

▲

testdelacc1 2 days ago | parent [-]

You’d have to X-ray each container to know what was in it in the first place. Prohibitively expensive and would hurt exporters.

Stolen cars aren’t the only criminal activity. They engage in other activities as well. I just used it as an example.

▲

rjdj377dhabsn 2 days ago | parent [-]

> You’d have to X-ray each container to know what was in it in the first place. Prohibitively expensive and would hurt exporters.

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.

▲

hbs18 2 days ago | parent [-]

> some sampling % would be sufficient

From what I understand, this what happens currently and allows stolen cars to pass through

	▲	rjdj377dhabsn a day ago \| parent [-]
		Shouldn't there be enough information about the shippers to make arrests for the cars that are caught? 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.

▲

ACCount37 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't have a confidence that I can "do their job".

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.

	▲	testdelacc1 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Especially if your idea of "fix it" involves "give them power to breach chat privacy of every citizen". I never said it was though.

▲

solid_fuel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do shipping companies not have a responsibility to know their customer? Is there no required import/export paperwork for a container holding a 2-ton vehicle? Perhaps a title? Some proof of ownership?

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.

	▲	BLKNSLVR 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think this is one of the key points. What crimes are they actually trying to disrupt? And surely there are less every-single-citizen-communication-dragnet ways to get that done. 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.

▲

FateOfNations 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Inspect containers leaving the country for contraband. Require shipping companies to do KYC. Require documented proof of ownership for vehicle exports.

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A trivial way would be bait cars. I have absolutely no idea why the police doesn't do that more (or at all even). Also for bike theft.

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.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]