...

... how much is the data dragnet comparable to evaluating populations in these fuzzy terms, as if any aberration or anomaly will snap-to-fit in some framework of illegality to be used for biased prosecutions ...

Show me the man and I will find you the crime. -- Lavrentiy Beria

In a world were laws typically are many thousands of pages long, universal surveillance is a problem. Laws and regulations have been expanding exponentially. It is said, but is impossible to verify or falsify, that ever person with significant business interests commits around three felonies a day. I get the impression that the rate of increase is itself increasing, which projects to a left singularity - infinite legislation in finite time in our near future, but I don't have the numbers to project when the singularity arrives. Is there any way to find the total amount of legislation in each year? It used to be that one could know how much regulation by sizing the federal register, but this is no longer the case. We have already hit the event horizon of regulation, in that the federal register has ceased to have any meaning. These days most regulations cannot be found in any well defined or meaningful place, and if they could be found it would not be much use, since current doctrine is that regulations are defeated by people merely obeying them, since this always leads to the law of unintended consequences, that mere obedience is a sneaky form of de-regulation. Rather, those regulated should believe and have faith in the purposes for which the regulations were passed. As was illustrated with the Bank of Beverly Hills, compliance with regulations no longer suffices: Holiness, faith, and zeal is required. Ye shall not be saved by works, but by faith. For Beverly Hills bank, it was insufficient to obey the regulators. Their staff had to believe in the regulators. We are close to reaching the same situation in legislation as we have already achieved in regulation, where legislation becomes a form of prayer, as regulation already has, so that the mere words on paper cease to have meaning or effect.

wrote:

Show me the man and I will find you the crime. -- Lavrentiy Beria

in a relativistic world, this viewpoint could function as an absolute determiner of truth, especially in an authoritarian context. yet the concepts referenced can themselves be ungrounded, empirically, such that [crime] is only evaluated in a realm of partial-truth by default. thus the concept of ~crime would be relativistic, given who is observing, potentially. [observer] ----> ['truth'] the most basic issue in this, and where even scientists and technologists get it wrong is in the belief of a limited or bounded objective methodology, that accounts for 'truth' only in a limited framework while ignoring other truth that still could be relevant. this bias is built into the methodology via what is essentially private psychology, the role of the observer not itself being grounded in truth, yet believing itself capable of determining external truth based on this subjective existence: (A=B) ---> (A=A) it is just not that simple as willing into being a model of universal truth based on observation, without error-checking the observer themselves for flaws in belief, which instead function as if by default capable of discerning truth, yet this occurs in shared beliefs reliant on pseudo-truth, which is where ungrounded or relativistic (warped) ideology operates best. ['observer'] ----> ['truth'] in this way, an ideal observer would be accurately grounded in truth, neutralized observational bias via other observers of their own observation (qua: "observing the observer") which is necessary to model the observer in A=A terms, to remove falsity from those structural frameworks relied upon to make judgements. observer (pT) ---> ['truth'] absent this essential rigor of observation, whereby a self-evaluating observer is themselves acknowledged in their fallibility, and finiteness and boundedness in a particular perspective of an event, their private relativistic belief of what is occurring could /claim/ to be able to discern this external truth, yet, it is probable it will be bounded within the limit of their partial viewpoint by default, thus whatever 'truth' exists would need to be self-serving to uphold their viewpoint that establishes this truth, though it would be reliant on the errored framework for its reasoning, also highly likely of binary mindset that takes some aspect and makes it the 'whole truth' because it fits or matches a particular pattern or belief, thus validating it in the limited context. at most, it is only a 'partial truth' that can be ascertained this way - also likely unchecked for its veracity beyond this limited structural boundary... observer (pT) ---> ['pT'] || ['truth'] in other words, in this ambiguity, both the observer of an event defaults to a pseudo-truth observation, and the limited observation of an external event is captured within this bounded observational framework, and thus reliant on this partiality for its reasoning via pattern-matching -- though this occurs in a realm of matching signs as language, "images" in effect, that fulfill an objective criteria (A=A), though it is of [signs] = [signs] that are ungrounded, only partially truth, and yet what is partial is viewed 'whole' or given universality - including errors and flaws and wrong or warped assumptions, left uncorrected because these allow the viewpoint, the belief that this is true because it can be ideologically equated with it, via surface-level signage, versus the larger truth it involves, which remains unaccounted for, ignored, or denied outside the private boundary, though also inside if it contradicts a belief, it thus will be subjectivized, cherrypicked to -prove- "true belief" as a form of dogma, a settled fact that is incontestable. in other words, the ungrounded observer influences the observation, their measurement and momentum effecting what is observed and thus their biasing reflected in biased viewpoints that can limit truth so as to privately secure it in binary onesided frameworks. for instance, the observer of the man (who thus is determining crime) could view a situation in their own limited threshold while leaving out other relevant data, which is what onesided binary viewpoints allow, an ideology of this as a faith-based belief system, yet not of external truth -- instead it is of a protected truth, inside the private framework of the observer themselves, where they are the determiner of truth, on their own terms. that is, the observer takes on god-status, places themselves as the determiner of universal truth even while in a warped relativistic viewpoint, and decides what will be true, as if this is not a conceit and egotism. this ungrounded form of observation places ['truth'] secondary to belief about [truth] which is how the intellectual aspect of ideas can be short-circuited to just allow surface-level superficial pattern matching of [signs] in a realm of pseudo-truth, which speeds up processing and decision-making and allows easy alignment of mass viewpoints based on answered questions in a common POV though this can be and is ungrounded and relativistic by default of its boundedness, finiteness, controlling a version of ideas and events (essentially all of politics and religion and science and culture) yet that is actually detached from accounting for these beliefs in terms of their truth, beyond the given and protected boundaries and borders - these, profit/prophet-centers no less. ungrounded beliefs then, by default, are assumed objective because ~facts can match a pattern and be edited to onesideness and then deny other facts both within and beyond the protected boundary, leaving a model of 'total truth' or universal shared belief that is based in and reliant upon inaccuracies yet in denial or disregard of these, because it is about power firstly, not truth, and truth is serving an agenda, a rationalization and viewpoint that it is forced into conformance with, versus existing in its own right and beyond a context of inaccuracy. this is why accounting for truth via logical reasoning beyond binarism is basically illegal, it has no place within society. the observer can be proved wrong, faulty and flawed in observation, yet in a hierarchical society this cannot be allowed, thus censorship and editing of viewpoints, who is in-group and excommunicated or barred from entry, so as to maintain the ideology that is A=B in its partialized "universalism" that is a self-serving, biased, inaccurate, relativistic framework. (the observers are essentially highest truth, their views made infallible, people serving themselves firstly -- not truth itself. this is the ultimate corruption of the self and a condition that people can be born into and can maintain throughout an entire lifetime as an ideological belief system, where 'truth' is meant to serve their immediate needs firstly or it must be wrong, damn the evidence) [observer] ---> [person] ---> [event] [observer] ---> [criminal] ---> [crime] in other words, the-sign-of-crime could be patterned matched to some event, and evaluated only in a limited biased framework, thus regarding only the [event] and not the ['event'] in its total truth, nor likewise the total evaluation of said ['crime'] beyond a certain self-serving observational threshold allowing the default viewpoint, favorable to an observer seeking out such justifications. this is why the method to establish grounding is needed. what i refer to as ~recontexualization into a shared framework of parallel observation, an event taken from every perspective, which will be beyond a single observer or finite dimensions and instead model a situation in all the dimensions it exists and can be accounted for, say N-observers and N-dimensional evaluation. ungrounded_observer (pT) ---> "crime" (pT) the situation likely involves every observer having access to 'some truth', though it is only when it is compiled together that the total situation in its truth can be accounted for. what if, for instance, the observer who is after a person for a crime is actually themselves involved in setting someone up for the scenario, and yet this is not accounted for in their 'belief system' about what happened or how it should be dealt with. that is- they themselves are left outside the equation even while they may have a hidden agenda or motive for the given rationalization. so what if falsity or deception is part of the pseudo-truth observation, what if there is more to it and yet they are willing to cede anything to such truth that ties them to the crime, and yet other observers can account for the same event in these terms, and have evidence corresponding to this scenario. what that would involve is an observation existing beyond a finite viewpoint that the original observer seeks to determine as A=A (T) in a warped and twisted way, without accounting for their own errors or falsity which could be covered up by a simplistic view of [crime] = [crime] as it equates with language, pattern matching of signs, versus the real ['crime'] in its empirical truth, what the dimensions where, say decades in the making for a setup and takedown, and thus the observer could be the real criminal and yet realize they are actually the one on trial, even though to their limited evaluation it _appears an exact match to their private reality. this is where deception and psyops probably do their work, in terms of the illusion, the exploit of pT=T and A=B as if A=A when instead it is B=B. another way of saying it is that there could be parallel truths, some grounded some not, and these could co-exist in superposition from any perspective, and events could appear a certain way given predisposition, logic, and belief system, such that realities could be affirmed yet entirely different in a similar context, while evaluated in different parameters and by different means, implying here rigor and lack of or absence of rigor, as the situation may allow ~beliefs to exist friction-free. observer (T) ----> 'crime' (T) it is entirely possible an observer could remove themselves of falsity, include and account for all evidence beyond a private view and boundary, and evaluate a situation in its entirety to discern its truth, given the combined evidence. yet if this situation instead needs to be edited to conform to a viewpoint, to allow a given belief, and a political rationalization self-beneficial to an observer, then perhaps the falsity of the observer is involved more than at the level of inaccuracy, and instead is lying or being deceptive, not truthful themselves yet seeking to determine it for others -- the ultimate in hypocrisy. worse yet is this as a management ~ideology or belief system, where entire peoples are held within dumb, self-serving hierarchical viewpoints that are not based in a larger truth, and that over time increasingly become less and less connected with external reality, including the economics of this, just look at how government systems serve themselves before citizenry as the major example of a failed state system. this same ungrounded relativistic situation of observers (who are not themselves operating in 'truth', only 'partial truth') likewise occurs in language and legal systems as mentioned, where ungrounded relations and exchange are the basis for determining "justice" yet this concept is detached from its truth, and instead it is a law of signs, pattern matching, and not of their truth, to the degree that you could make a logical proof of a situation in its entirety and have that be the perspective that is evaluated, versus having agreements based on 'shared observation' in a social realm, as consensus is formed within language, not 1 & 0.