<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>squeaky-clean</author><text>It should be made more difficult because of the harm that could come if it&amp;#x27;s used unjustly is much greater than any good it can cause by being used correctly.&lt;p&gt;Just because someone has sworn to protect you doesn&amp;#x27;t mean they&amp;#x27;ll actually do it. And that doesn&amp;#x27;t prevent anyone else from using it against you either. In a perfect world, all the police follow the law, all the governments follow the law, and there are no criminals to steal this information.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; at making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult&lt;p&gt;What job is made easier by providing a list of all gun owners?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; is not only acceptable, but preferred.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s pretty much the entire foundation of America. You don&amp;#x27;t trust the person. You trust the system, and hopefully design the system in a way that minimizes abuse. No, it&amp;#x27;s not perfect and never can be. But one concrete example is the fourth amendment. The ability for an officer to search a home for evidence without permission is just too ripe for abuse, even if it does allow criminals to get away with things.</text><parent_chain><item><author>drusepth</author><text>It always blows my mind to see people suggest that making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult is not only acceptable, but preferred.</text></item><item><author>ekianjo</author><text>&amp;gt; Allowing a paper trail but not allowing digital records doesn&amp;#x27;t really benefit gun owners&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d say anything making the job of the police a little more tedious is worth bonus points. There is so much asymmetry of power against citizens that such measures restore a little bit of balance. You can&amp;#x27;t have both Freedom and a super effective police force on the other hand. It&amp;#x27;s always a trade-off.</text></item><item><author>knz</author><text>Do we still trust that these types of rules are being followed (particularly in the context of mass surveillance)? If I recall correctly, the public has been told on many occasions that the NSA&amp;#x2F;FBI&amp;#x2F;local police were not doing something only to be told years later that this was not the case.&lt;p&gt;Laws such as this just highlight how asinine gun policy can be. Allowing a paper trail but not allowing digital records doesn&amp;#x27;t really benefit gun owners (Completing a 4473 would be a lot easier if they could verify that you are already a responsible gun owner) or make policing gun laws any safer (straw purchases would be easier to track if the records were digitized).</text></item><item><author>rb808</author><text>Interesting how gun records are forbidden to be computerized. NRA knows how to avoid big brother.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gq.com&amp;#x2F;story&amp;#x2F;inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gq.com&amp;#x2F;story&amp;#x2F;inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt; That&amp;#x27;s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America&amp;#x27;s gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It&amp;#x27;s kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Watched: Police are stockpiling databases with personal information</title><url>https://data.postandcourier.com/saga/watched/page/1</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>pc86</author><text>It always blows my mind to see people willfully misinterpret the meaning of a statement.&lt;p&gt;In this context there is obviously a belief that the police are doing something they should. Whether it&amp;#x27;s illegal, or immoral, or legal but contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, or whatever the reasoning may be.&lt;p&gt;They could just as easily have said &amp;quot;anything that makes it more difficult for the NSA to track my interests and whereabouts is bonus points&amp;quot; and I think a majority of people on here would probably agree with that statement.&lt;p&gt;Just because it&amp;#x27;s a local cop sworn to protect Americans vs. an NSA analyst or FBI agent doesn&amp;#x27;t make them any more likely to actually do it.</text><parent_chain><item><author>drusepth</author><text>It always blows my mind to see people suggest that making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult is not only acceptable, but preferred.</text></item><item><author>ekianjo</author><text>&amp;gt; Allowing a paper trail but not allowing digital records doesn&amp;#x27;t really benefit gun owners&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d say anything making the job of the police a little more tedious is worth bonus points. There is so much asymmetry of power against citizens that such measures restore a little bit of balance. You can&amp;#x27;t have both Freedom and a super effective police force on the other hand. It&amp;#x27;s always a trade-off.</text></item><item><author>knz</author><text>Do we still trust that these types of rules are being followed (particularly in the context of mass surveillance)? If I recall correctly, the public has been told on many occasions that the NSA&amp;#x2F;FBI&amp;#x2F;local police were not doing something only to be told years later that this was not the case.&lt;p&gt;Laws such as this just highlight how asinine gun policy can be. Allowing a paper trail but not allowing digital records doesn&amp;#x27;t really benefit gun owners (Completing a 4473 would be a lot easier if they could verify that you are already a responsible gun owner) or make policing gun laws any safer (straw purchases would be easier to track if the records were digitized).</text></item><item><author>rb808</author><text>Interesting how gun records are forbidden to be computerized. NRA knows how to avoid big brother.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gq.com&amp;#x2F;story&amp;#x2F;inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.gq.com&amp;#x2F;story&amp;#x2F;inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-man...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;gt; That&amp;#x27;s been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America&amp;#x27;s gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It&amp;#x27;s kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Watched: Police are stockpiling databases with personal information</title><url>https://data.postandcourier.com/saga/watched/page/1</url></story>