Because the whole concept that massive monitoring leads to reduced crime is just one of those seductively simple authoritarian fallacies.
At best it is a tool that lets you "rewind" time to look at events that were coincident to a crime. But that doesn't necessarily get you new information, often its just a different way to get the same information that 'old-fashioned policework' would have turned up.
At worst it becomes a distraction for the police, a mental box that they are stuck in. Kind of like, "if it isn't in google, it isn't on the internet."
I'm not saying monitoring never improves the situation, I'm saying that its kind of like a glass of water - you can only pour so much water into it until the excess just spills out and starts making a mess.
(BTW I have a similar opinion about the utility of 'targeted' advertising.)
This effort by law enforcement to identify "bad actors" in society is similar in concept to the effort medical biologists to identify "bad" genes.
Oddly enough (or maybe not), both groups appear to have run into the same problem. In biology it was once thought that more "omics" (genomics, metabolomics, etc) would be better and lead to a better prediction of negative outcomes. Apparently, it is not, mostly, at least not yet.
It seems that for many important events (crime/cancer) a larger mass of untargeted data does not make determining causative effects much easier. Personal expertise in a particular disease area almost always trumps the most fervent of statisticians and "big data" biologists. I imagine it is similar for crimes (for example, the local police would know who is a trouble-maker, or a congressman would know which bankers are shady).
I don't think this will forever be the case, but for now, detection of pre-crime and pre-cancer are in the realms of fiction, at least in the majority of cases.
At best it is a tool that lets you "rewind" time to look at events that were coincident to a crime. But that doesn't necessarily get you new information, often its just a different way to get the same information that 'old-fashioned policework' would have turned up.
At worst it becomes a distraction for the police, a mental box that they are stuck in. Kind of like, "if it isn't in google, it isn't on the internet."
I'm not saying monitoring never improves the situation, I'm saying that its kind of like a glass of water - you can only pour so much water into it until the excess just spills out and starts making a mess.
(BTW I have a similar opinion about the utility of 'targeted' advertising.)