The NameUs US public database of around 26k longer term active missing person cases adds around 600 new names per month. It doesn't seem odd that a handful over years would share a narrow professional interest.

But that number, 20 disappeared people per day, is gut wrenching. (US murders are at around 40 per day.) Surveillance sucks, but maybe at least it can be leveraged to find patterns when married to NameUs data. On the other hand I can sympathize with someone who just doesn't want to be found.

▲

spacephysics 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’d slightly disagree, the profile of people who go missing is as important as a random chance there is a coincidence. Former military officers, high-level scientists. These individuals have training, money, and live in areas where this tends not to happen.

A disappearance of someone from the above background, vs someone who is say in midwest rural America or near areas where human trafficking crimes occur at a higher rate than normal, matters.

Further, their research/knowledge of sensitive government material also implies they likely have some form of overwatch or at least minimal monitoring for foreign agent threats from our government (or had in the past). Its not uncommon for high ranking military officials to have some form of training in counter surveillance tradecraft for this exact reason.

The odds these events are due to a foreign adversary given the multiple wars and geopolitical tensions are not negligible

▲

derektank 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>Former military officers, high-level scientists. These individuals have training, money, and live in areas where this tends not to happen.

From my personal experience, these are also the kinds of people that enjoy challenging and thrill seeking hobbies like mountain climbing, backpacking, etc that put them in a position where there’s some not insignificant chance of death in a remote location.

	▲	Cpoll 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They usually tell people when they're going climbing.

▲

kube-system 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The likelihood of becoming a missing person is very likely not evenly distributed.

▲

pclmulqdq 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You aren't going to find the missing people with more surveillance if you weren't finding them already.

	▲	2ndorderthought 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. Especially if there is any likelihood that the people doing the surveillance are doing the disappearings. It only makes it easier.

▲

39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

martin-t 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll happily take 20 missing people per day in exchange for the ability to organize a demonstration[0] or an uprising when needed and for not being disappeared myself when the surveillance net falls into the hands of the next (or current) despot.

[0]: I don't like the word protest because words are meaningless. A mass gathering of people is a demonstration of force because manpower means firepower and firepower means simple power as all real world power comes from violence.

▲

unethical_ban 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It should be clear that martin-t is not "happy" about disappearances.

I've thought the same thing they expressed - perfect surveillance, if put into practice with omnipresent cameras tied to AI analysis for infinite government agents tracking each of us, would not be used to solve all crime but would be used to pre-emptively end any eventual needed revolution or mass uprising against the state.

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

	▲	martin-t 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, tools are just tools - they are not good or bad by themselves but by how people use them. (Though of course, some tools are much easier to use for one side than the other.) The second issue is surveillance does not affect all crime[0] equally. It works best against organized or planned action. It does little to prevent crimes of passion or spur of the moment decisions. States are more likely to be affected of the first kind, normal people are much more likely to be affected by the second. [0]: It should go without saying, crime does not mean bad/harmful/evil but merely against the law. Slavery used to be legal, as was the holocaust.

▲

esseph 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Surveillance sucks, but

No.