Copy-paste because it’s essentially the same response:
Well, I have to admit that I didn’t read the article, just the title, now I have read it and understood the system.
Sorry, my bad for making a hasty conclusion.
I still feel that it can be abused because for a non-stalker is difficult to actually prove in a meaningful way that they’re not an stalker, and as such can be easily mislabeled. That’s specially problematic when you take into account things like pretty privilege, poverty traps, class dynamics, etc.
But at least now it seems a bit more reasonable. I just hope that it’s used in a fair and responsible way.
But also:
Well, if someone is falsefully labeled a stalker, then what happens? He won’t come near.
Imagine that person works, lives or has something to do regularly there (i.e., medical checkouts, or accountability stuff, or legal stuff, idk). It’s a huge problem if it’s misused.
And I’m not even against the victims, as almost everyone here thinks that I am because of the fact that I think this is a bit problematic. I just think that a better solution should be developed.
I’m with you that it isn’t perfect. I also don’t assume malicious intent from you.
But (probably depending a lot on location) here nothing is done to protect victims. I work for free in a shelter where abused people end up, and the impotence they face is maddening.
Unless your stalker viciously attacks or even kills you, nothing can and will be done.
Sure, you’re right, if the accused stalker is no stalker at all, every system fails.
But that applies to everything in the justice-system. We can never ever be 100% sure. Countless people were executed worldwide just to later learn they were innocent.
BUT I would bet that the amount of false-positives is much smaller than the amount of true positives. So maybe 50 victims is helped, 1 innocent non-stalker pays a hefty price. Numbers pulled outta my arse, but provably not too far off.
Question is, better a not perfect system or none at all? Better to protect 2 victims or protect 1 innocent? Ideally both, but also near impossible.
It is also a very thin veil here. A stalker, by definition, hasn’t done anything really solid criminal YET. But the victim is in real danger. Where to draw the line and how to proove being followed (or not following someone)?
I usually feel very depressed when I think about it because I do not like the idea that other people have to suffer in that way (wether it is a victim of harassment or abuse, or one of false allegations).
I would argue, however, that false positives are not so low. Especially when there are so many malicious incentives (even if they are not intentional on the part of those who plan, develop or approve this type of measure) to do that, and there are also too many people who are twisted in the world. Sometimes I start to think about why we had to touch such a difficult world, when I realize things like that.
The same goes for false negatives, though.
I’m with you here. It is depressing. As most matters that kinda involve our species.
And there rarely are absolute solutions. We mostly just approximate a good solution and rarely border perfection.
Sure, false positives might be higher than I made them up, but most likely still lower than true positivis. And yes, even one life-destroying false-positive makes the whole system questionable. Is one person worth 10 others? Or 5? Or even 2?
If it is the best idea we currently have, I’d side with Spock (the many vs the few), but am not really satisfied. My high demand for exact justice is rarely sated 😞
Well, if someone is falsefully labeled a stalker, then what happens? He won’t come near.
Also, as said, the chance this stalker is already fine with being tracked all around by every device he owns, is probably near 100, so who cares?
Copy-paste because it’s essentially the same response:
But also:
Imagine that person works, lives or has something to do regularly there (i.e., medical checkouts, or accountability stuff, or legal stuff, idk). It’s a huge problem if it’s misused.
And I’m not even against the victims, as almost everyone here thinks that I am because of the fact that I think this is a bit problematic. I just think that a better solution should be developed.
I’m with you that it isn’t perfect. I also don’t assume malicious intent from you.
But (probably depending a lot on location) here nothing is done to protect victims. I work for free in a shelter where abused people end up, and the impotence they face is maddening. Unless your stalker viciously attacks or even kills you, nothing can and will be done.
Sure, you’re right, if the accused stalker is no stalker at all, every system fails. But that applies to everything in the justice-system. We can never ever be 100% sure. Countless people were executed worldwide just to later learn they were innocent.
BUT I would bet that the amount of false-positives is much smaller than the amount of true positives. So maybe 50 victims is helped, 1 innocent non-stalker pays a hefty price. Numbers pulled outta my arse, but provably not too far off.
Question is, better a not perfect system or none at all? Better to protect 2 victims or protect 1 innocent? Ideally both, but also near impossible.
It is also a very thin veil here. A stalker, by definition, hasn’t done anything really solid criminal YET. But the victim is in real danger. Where to draw the line and how to proove being followed (or not following someone)?
Yeah, these are really hard and though problems.
I usually feel very depressed when I think about it because I do not like the idea that other people have to suffer in that way (wether it is a victim of harassment or abuse, or one of false allegations).
I would argue, however, that false positives are not so low. Especially when there are so many malicious incentives (even if they are not intentional on the part of those who plan, develop or approve this type of measure) to do that, and there are also too many people who are twisted in the world. Sometimes I start to think about why we had to touch such a difficult world, when I realize things like that. The same goes for false negatives, though.
I’m with you here. It is depressing. As most matters that kinda involve our species. And there rarely are absolute solutions. We mostly just approximate a good solution and rarely border perfection.
Sure, false positives might be higher than I made them up, but most likely still lower than true positivis. And yes, even one life-destroying false-positive makes the whole system questionable. Is one person worth 10 others? Or 5? Or even 2?
If it is the best idea we currently have, I’d side with Spock (the many vs the few), but am not really satisfied. My high demand for exact justice is rarely sated 😞