RE: I'm not important.
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The computerization basically prevents edge cases and exceptions from either coming to light... or maybe just getting deprioritized.
Say, 50 years ago, if a mother stole away her child to another country, the father could report it to police, and they'd write it all down and go through their processes.
Now, you might make a police report, they write it down, but when they computerize it, your situation doesn't fit into their system properly (because it's unusual) so they don't know how to process it... or they put it all in properly, but because it's unusual it gets depriorized.
Maybe there is a law saying that a mother gets more rights over the children than a father, in case there isn't much you can do except organize to change the law... but more likely the laws say that no one can kidnap a child, but your case gets depriorized or lost in their systems because it's not neat or usual.
I don't think I've explained this well, my point is that the laws are just one piece of the puzzle, but the implementation and enforcement of laws is another massive piece of the puzzle that often gets missed.
That makes more sense now, thanks for taking the time to explain! I honestly don't think that it's any different now than then, at least in the result. The process, yes. It's a lot easier to track somebody down these days, though. And police are a lot better connected. It's just the will that is missing. If bureaucrats know that it's a lot of work, it falls of the desk. I wouldn't blame computerization for that, just common human laziness.