asking about how does the government in this administration feel they should try to protect that power? we see it in things like title 42, which has been discussed a lot in the immigration context. and we know from our experience of these last couple of years there are a lot of issues that come up in public health and more are expected. garrett? all right. kelly o donnell and gary grumbach, thank you both. dr. hilton, thank you for waiting in the tv equivalent of a waiting room here with us. help me let s talk about the context here a little bit of just where we are in the pandemic and to the degree that this decision will have a big impact, right? we ve seen cases going back up a little bit, but deaths have been decreasing. hospitalizations are extremely low. what kind of impact do you think the end of this mask mandate, these mask mandates across the board may have given where we are right now? i think this will have tremendous impact. what we have to remember is we re only cap
you have an absolute right to privacy, but on the same token, you have a competing priority, which is we have the right to not get murdered and raped. what amount of privacy are you willing to give up versus, you know, getting increased safety in society? missing people and murderers are one thing, but there s another concern here, too that this technology might be used for lesser and lesser crimes until it becomes endemic in the legal system. with severity of offences, you know, we hear about serial rape, we hear about serial murders, but there might be cases for using it in an immigration context or using it in a less serious crime context. we structure our society with suspicion based reasons to intrude on people s privacy because we feel as a community that was the right thing to do, even when it means occasionally some crimes go unsolved. i think it is incredibly hard to say this i don t mean to minimise or be
an immigration context or using it in a less serious crime context. we structure our society with suspicion based reasons to intrude on people s privacy because we feel as a community that was the right thing to do, even when it means occasionally some crimes go unsolved. i think it is incredibly hard to say this i don t mean to minimise or be dismissive of the claim but we don t make policies about the civil liberties of our whole society based on the personal feelings of single victims or the needs of single victims. there are an estimated 250,000 unsolved murders in the us alone a number that increases by around 6,000 each year. advocates of this technology say it is cruel to tell a victim s family that the technology s available to solve a crime but it can t be used.
i don t think so. no american citizen who goes to jail is then given reparations let alone half a million dollars per family member. nothing like this has ever been attempted in the hills industry of the world. brian: i watched 60 minutes do immigration story. i thought okay they are going to talk about the 1.7 million illegals we got instead of the god aways. whatever focused to those families separated at the border? this is something looking for political gain. they don t want this story to go away. do you think this is pure politics or do you think this is a heart for those who can t find their mom? well, first of all, again, the individuals that you are talking about that were criminally prosecuted, when they finished serving their time in federal jail, or federal prison as the case may be, some of them were opted to return home and leave their family members here and some opted to go home with their family members. that was a choice that they made. as happens all the time i
in society? we hear about a serial rape, we hear about serial murders. but less prominent are going to be cases that there might be more controversy about, whether it s using it in an immigration context or using it in a less serious crime context. we structure our society with suspicion based reasons to intrude on people s privacy because we felt as a community that that was the right thing to do even when it means that occasionally some crimes go unsolved. i think it is incredibly hard to say this. i don t mean to minimise or be dismissive of the claim. but we don t make policies about the civil liberties of our whole society based on the personal feelings of single victims, or the needs of single victims. after the apprehension and arrest was made, i started to feel peace p e a c e. you know, i didn t realise for almost 4.5 decades i had been geared up for a fight.