You have it backwards. A perfect detection rate for crime makes it much more important that we define conservatively what we even consider to be a crime in the first place, and then what kind of punishment we levy upon it.
You also have it backwards because it already reliably makes society better for you. Take the case of Biogen employee Michael Bawduniak, who spent seven years documenting covert payments that steered doctors toward Biogen’s multiple‑sclerosis drugs illegally. When the United States Department of Justice settled the case for $900 million in 2022, Bawduniak received roughly $266 million, or about 30% of the federal proceeds, under the False Claims Act. It's a very similar mechanism, and anyone you may know who suffers from multiple sclerosis has likely had their treatment options materially improved thanks to Bawduniak's actions. But those kinds of actions only happen when you have the right mechanisms in place, to reward people who do the right thing.
That is entirely different type of crime. Do you let an AI write your comments?
[flagged]
Why? How do you draw the line between people who deserve to be "surveilled" (if you can even call it that in this case...) vs. people who don't?
You are entitled to your opinion of course but it just seems extremely arbitrary.
I don't have a good, rational answer.
I think the idea is vaguely that the upper-upper class statistically must've done something wrong or have the power to cause extreme harm, therefore it's okay to snitch on them but not your regular Joe.
I'm just espousing the standard American middle class views about freedom here. Not trying to argue they are sound or rational.
Well, I disagree, but I pick my battles carefully and would never risk turning someone against the False Claims Act to win such a small victory. Point conceded.