These regulations were sponsored by Jim Ardis. He was up all night working on this; amongst other things; and now has blood-shot eyes.

Just make sure you sign it with your real name.

People with arrest records and those who might be vulnerable to critical thinking skills tend not to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome quite so readily.

HTTPS/SSL does no protect them from sending the information to an unintended recipient.

OpenPGP. Signed and encrypted; eliminates unintended recipients from reading the contents; guarantees the sender.

If I were in the elevator, I'd rather it didn't break at all.

Knowing that there's an investigation is the key part; Viz. ...or influence the investigation or proper administration... If you pre-emtively design a self-destruct system, you've no knowledge of an investigation.

Including all those who inadvertently exceed the speed limit.

I think you're really talking about a narcissism.

Whether something is asked in a form of a question or stated in the form of an announcement has a big difference to the psychology of the situation. You should have a look at Neuro-Linguistic Programming. While this isn't NLP exactly, it's kinda close.

Coppers invariably begin fishing encounters with small-talk; as if they're being friendly and courteous. They'll never be explicit about you being detained or otherwise. On the surface, I suppose they are being courteous; except, since I view them as professional predators, I'm aware they invariably have an ulterior motive. A general member of the public, if they have need to stop someone to ask something, will usually express an apologetic tone for their intrusiveness, and thank profusely for your help, even if you couldn't help. Whenever did you encounter such a tone with an LEO? I'm betting never.

In the instance you relate, the coppers started telling you they were looking for a suspicious person; which is small-talk. You could simply say, "sorry, I don't know that person, I cannot help you." and "Have a good day sirs!". On you go. They never were explicitly detaining you (according to your account), so you should, IMHO, presume they're not. Of course, if they become agitated and edgy, you can always wind back the indifferent assertiveness and go with their flow.

The political class and their praetorian sycophants have way too much power, simply because power is there for the taking.

Did I suggest simply walking away? I don't think so. What I was suggesting was to turn the "question" into an "announcement". It alludes to the same issue - whether they have cause to detain. If they have cause, they still can prevent departure; it's just that they have to explicitly do it, rather than rely on the Stockholm Syndrome effects to keep their target around.

BTW, the phrase "am I being detained or am I free to go?" is not "Police terminology". It is just a convention that has evolved. It has no special legal origin.

Those with the most bravado turn out to be the most suggestible.

Why shit your pants? Just get up, lower your pants and deposit it on the floor.

Having watched a string of youtube videos of immigration checkpoints and open-carry encounters; I notice that people often ask if they're being detained or if they're free to go. I wonder if this unwitting asking of permission actually grants the LEO significant psychological power in the situation. I haven't had the opportunity to try it yet, but I'm thinking that a cheerful announcement of an intention to leave would then put the LEO on the defensive and force him/her to say that you can't leave and enunciate a cogent reason why (particularly if you ask "why?" when they tell you that you can't leave).

The Stockholm Syndrome is strong in most people, unfortunately.

The thing to allude in any police interview is that if they have sufficient evidence with which to prosecute; have at it; get on with the prosecution. If they're looking for further evidence to pad their sketchy allegations, you're not going to be foolish enough to provide it. Thus, the interview is concluded.