>The police can — clearly, as per this article — do their job without yet another intrusive privacy overreach being put permanently on the books.
I'm a big proponent making police do actual police work to catch offenders.
In fact, police use of geo-fencing warrants, genealogical database mining, IMSI catchers and other invasions of privacy are all huge overreaches that should be slapped down hard.
That said, what reasonable mechanism do you suggest for police to use in identifying and deterring the catalytic converter (CC) theft market? Having "legitimate" businesses report on their interactions with CCs seems minimally invasive, as compared with other extremely invasive practices already being used by law "enforcement".
Given that (IIUC) most stolen CCs are broken down for the expensive metals they contain, rather than being sold in a black aftermarket, it's unlikely that police can just find a stolen CC and look at its serial number to determine whether or not it's been stolen.
Are you arguing that we should ignore the issue of stolen CCs because any action is worse, or do you have a reasonable suggestion as to how to address this issue? That's not a jab at you. You seem to have strong feelings about this (I don't), so I'd like to understand what potential alternatives might exist to the new law. If you'd expand on that, I'd be most appreciative!
While I don't disagree with the idea that police should do, you know, actual police work, rather than trample on the privacy of the population (e.g., all these calls for encryption back doors as well as the stuff I mention above), it's not clear to me what the issue might be here.
Is this really the case? Isn't a great deal of stolen art not shown around so it can't be identified? I wonder if most stolen art is kept in vaults and never shown to anyone.
It's funny how you have to argue on HACKER news against government overreach and you get downvoted. It's actually not funny. It's sad. I remember a time the hacker community was very weary of the government. Today they seem to defend it no matter what.
Hackers in the sense that HN uses the term have never been a monoculture. "Government" isn't a monolithic concept either. Some is good but some is not.
Plenty of hackers, for instance, supported the creation of the EPA. I know plenty of permaculture hackers and mycologist hackers who very much want the government regulating pollutants and safety.
The hacker ethos is not limited to computers. The medium doesn't matter. It can be programming or gardening or art or body modification or whatever. The important part of 3 the experimental, curious, often "hacked together" nature of the projects combined with a sort of joy in discovery. Stallman has, for instance, called out particular poets and musicians as hackers.
The police can — clearly, as per this article — do their job without yet another intrusive privacy overreach being put permanently on the books.