By their (lack of) logic, they should also have an officer following every citizen and logging where people go, so that they can know John left his house at 9:17 and checked in at local grocery shop at 9:28. With a warrant they could then obtain information that he has bought a large cucumber - let's arrest him, because he is probably cheating on the government with cucumber. He told the grocer, that how government fucks him is not making him satisfied, so he has to finish the job with a cucumber.
We should also ban alleyways, as criminals can hide in them too.
Also noisy pubs and bars, because they provide an excellent environment for criminals to converse without people overhearing them.
And possibly the postal service, because criminals can use them to send messages, explosives, drugs and children to other criminals, without the police knowing the approximate contents of the communications.
With location data and browsing habit metadata they already have that kind of info (with warrants). But their logic is still flawed in assuming criminals won't use a VPN and HTTPS.
It seems they want historical data so that they can run algorithms on large datasets and identify potential threats. In theory it's great as it will catch your average low level idealists, so rationally we can conclude that they're trying to focus on identifying, for example, potential IS recruits rather than organised crime.
That's so 00s. We need something that can't be easily fooled by scarf. I wonder when body odour recognition will arrive
joking aside, facial recognition has still some challenges, it can track a face wherever it goes but it's hard to assign a face to an identity unless it's constantly retrained (especially as people age/change)
