Quickly, yes. Try HERE This is a wikipedia page that reflects the FBI data. For some reason when I googled "US Crime Rates" the first 3 links, the ones associated with the FBI refused connection and I don't know why yet. Additionally to the raw statistics there have been many articles in respected newspapers and journals discussing the degree of the crinme rate downturn and how it has been achieved and in some cases questioning if it is in part due to profiling.... not profiling like serial killer profiling (individual) but community, demographic or geographical profiling. Some question the ethics of such profiling but none disagree that crime rates have plummeted.

These statistics in the wiki have nothing to do with The Innocence Project WIKI HERE and I can't find a list of all freed so far, only some higher profile examples, but even those have already instigated reopened cases where the actual perpetrator who thought his patsy made him safe has been apprehended and imprisoned. The message is clear that Science and Technology funded by both private and government agencies has made crime far more difficult and the likelihood of incarcerating the right offender far higher and far beyond the resources of individuals.

It concerns me not a little that you have repeatedly stated this as hard fact when such certainty is impossible for any of us not directly involved in the investigation. The best we can hope for is decent odds subject to the rules of evidence, logic and a dash of Occam's Razor. All conspiracy theories, whether actually on to something or of the tinfoil hat variety exist exactly because they sound reasonable when one focuses only on the sales pitch which usually generalizes, glosses over and misdirects to make disparate data fit together. Those that seem false are soon disregarded whether the premise was accurate or not. So this ongoing "theory" (in quotes because it does not hold up to the definition of Scientific Theory in the least) seems convincing.

Example: If you view documents or videos by those often otherwise intelligent people who actually believe that the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax it really does beg enough questions to foster doubt. However not only does that totally disregard photos from orbiters showing the landing sites with tire tracks and the Lunar Vehicle but even the existence of the laser reflectors placed there and available to amateurs as well as students and professionals for measuring orbital drift placed there in later missions. Moreover the most grievous error is ignoring the sheer number of people who would have to all be willing conspirators and the astronomical odds against all "holding the line" without one single leak or false step.

Similarly the whole 9/11 Conspiracy Theory of demolitions disregards specifics as well as that most grievous error common to all of the impossibility of the number of people required to pull such an operation off without detection both then placing said explosives (didn't work for Guy Fawkes in far less surveilled times) and since then. The only successful conspiracies in history are those where all but one or two conspirators were killed off or otherwise silenced and even this becomes problematic logarithmically as the numbers increase. The numbers required to pull off 9/11 demolitions easily exceeds two dozen and that's over 20 too many for decent odds.

It is not impossible that it happened that way but it is highly unlikely and certainly questionable and therefore should not be treated as self-evident.

Of course, this only works because the damned fool "donated a semen sample."

The bottom line of the (Internet) "1984 issue" is that, even though it has not yet captured the public's consciousness, there will be holy-Hell to pay in the data processing industry ... in our industry ... when it finally does. There will be unfathomably large lawsuits, and regulations that are "hastily imposed" by Congressmen who are feeling the heat. For a wide variety of reasons, we should make ourselves smart-enough to do the right thing with regards to data before someone catastrophically exposes our utter international folly. Criminals and war-lords can see our vulnerability ... but, so can we. "But there's gobs of money to be made right now!" should not be the argument that wins. Tomorrow does come.

Talking about 9/11... Can you imagine that because of the stupid conspiracy theories involved, the US government actually got away from the public view as to why they were not able to prevent this even if they knew something like this is to happen... And as a direct consequence they actually got the green light to start a war and invent super-secret agencies that lie even in your Senate (something they tried on the '94 attacks but did not succeed and was then proven they we're wrong at whom they point their finger at)...
It is not unlikely that the US actually allowed this to happen (easily done without a huge number of people involved -- just 2 or 3 key-people). Sadly, this is just a theory, because anyone who would raise such questions would have been put together with the "controlled demolition" fanatics and been ignored...

Basically, normal people with (rare) factual (arguments) or at the very least believable and possible arguments could not make their voices heard because other normal people would simply dismiss it like just "another bullshit" and putting all conspiracy theories at the same level.. This is how humans think and react so, yeah, I, personally, could even see the controlled demolition rumor being started by the government itself...

Here's a spin sundial.. Thinking like you do is actually really bad for your own privacy and safety.. The problem is that when a large number of people start thinking like you do in a country that can really, really affect other countries in a whole set of manners.. well.. we should all start and thank you for screwing us over...

Exclusion from guilt or proof of innocence does not require that the real perpetrator "donated a semen sample". There are numerous and growing numbers of ways to inadvertently leave biologicals behind from which DNA can be harvested. Additionally a spinoff from such obvious and hard proof cases has been a far more skeptical view of police interrogation methods. More people all the time are beginning to understand that under the right (or wrong) conditions innocent people will and often do sign confessions for deeds they did not commit. All of these concurrent tweaks improve the nature of crime detection and prosecution, replacing a mallet with a scalpel.

It isn't as if this is not also a work in progress. Yes it has taken some time for enough of the old guard to get a clue or be replaced by newer tech savvy businessmen and government people to actually have a clue as to how powerful computers and information can be but they are now adapting rapidly all over the world. Just as in a very short time even within the limits on transportation and communication in the ancient world, the science of fortification was up to speed everywhere large enough and advanced enough to harvest stone so that there were no "backdoors" or easy, overlooked entrances and infiltration or seige were the only possible ways to overcome such defenses.

This is where we are now. at the very least in infrastructure. It is well known what strengths and limitations exist in networked systems and agencies exist to publish standards required to avoid monstrous fines and/or shutdowns and many companies exist to provide expertise on getting and staying compliant. I have relatives in this field and I can tell you that at least in the US this is taken extremely seriously and if 9/11 did nothing else it did shake up complacency.

Who is this "you" and "us"?

Also numerous and growing ways to frame innocent people. It is a two-edged sword.

In that context "you" = people with the same thought process like sundial (at least when it comes down to 9/11 as was the context of the post) ... "us"= basically any other person that lives in a country outside the US (of course, this represents my opinion of what we should do and I'm not trying to talk for any other person beside myself)

On second thought, it's better to say nothing here.

While that is true my argument is that increasing means of analyzing an event along with increased ability to communicate such processes is the stuff of progress. I freely admit that countermeasures abound which is why progress is a slow grind but it is progress nonetheless. This is why I think the net effect (pun only slightly intended heheh) of the Internet not only is but has necessarily to be positive. That it is unlikely that it or something like it will ever cease to exist now that the genie is out of the bottle means that the small net effect will stack over time and constitute a milestone in Human History over millennia.