So, continue this train of thought - If only partial data is available, then no data should be available because the partial data might induce incorrect assumptions in the general populace.

Apply this to:

Vaccination / disease management

Housing availability ("if they only know of these areas, will those areas become swamped and drive up prices?")

Price of drugs / medical services, or even medical test results (how many more suicides "might" occur if someone gets a possible cancer diagnosis)

Climate change

or anything else.

I think you'll find you're quickly concentrating knowledge dissemination into a central authority who decides what is "right" and that is much more dangerous than incomplete information.

▲

Zigurd 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

We're not talking about "partial data." We're talking about tendentious data that propagates existing known bias, produced by brutal problematic low quality policing. At the very least, people making apps based on crime location data need to acknowledge and flag such problems and inform their users of the dubiousness of LAPD and LASD data.

Surveillance tech and cop tech generally don't contribute to society because of these problems.

If you wouldn't trust RFK Jr. about vaccines, you should also be skeptical about what many PDs tell you. LAPD is just a particularly notorious example.

	▲	jvanderbot 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> We're not talking about "partial data." You might change the subject away from partial data, but the comment I replied to _was_ talking about partial data, and my rebuttal _is_ about partial data and the judgement of whether that partial data is worth releasing based soley on how we imaging people might react to it. Have you read "The Unthinkable"? I wouldn't trust RFK Jr. about vaccines if I didn't trust his data. But establishing a body that was in charge of disseminating data about vaccines is in high likelihood going to be taken over by RFK Jr types. Such a body shouldn't exist. Such a body would write "Turtles all the way down." > "knowledge is good" is such a naive take. Trivial example: You only have knowledge of crimes committed by immigrants but zero knowledge of crimes committed by citizens. How is that good? That counter-logic is so fundamentally flawed b/c it rests exclusively on the prejudgement of others and prediction of their use of the data while "I", the good thinker, can determine that it is bad for "them" to have access to this data. That is just a very bad way to think and is precisely what RFK-types do all the time.