My understanding is that in the vast majority of these mass shooting cases, authorities are well aware of the danger but there's no enforcement mechanism for "probably going to do a mass shooting".
It's called not paying to bombard them with great replacement conspiracy theories all for a decade and instead paying twice as many teachers as well as getting dedicated mental health staff.
Judging by what is done (and what is not done) to remedy them, they sound more like a feature than a bug of our society unfortunately. People are able to storm political institutions when they are angry about an election, but just buy more weapons when their kids get killed. Go figure.
I could almost support the panopticon if that actually happened.
Adjacently, to make the point: we warehouse 1000s or rape kits but don't bother to process them. Like, wtf?
Big Data completely flips the problem of investigation. Instead of identifying suspects, chasing leads, gathering evidence, and verifying alibis, with Big Data you just rule out everyone who does have an alibi. Leaving only those who don't have an alibi, thereby revealing the perpetrators.
It's been a while since I've actively cared about protecting privacy. So I don't know if any one's talking about how Big Data impacts legal concepts (balances of concerns) hammered out over the centuries. Like what is reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence when prosecutors can prove that every one else has an alibi?
When I tried to talk about this stuff with other privacy advocates, presumably savvy about policy and whatnot, they'd look at me like I'm paranoid schizophrenic. So if the experts are still coming up to speed, it'll take that much longer for the policy maker, much less the general public, to become aware.
