There are similar repositories here in the US.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-more-ransom-project-has-prevented-ransomware-profits-of-at-least-108-million/

No More Ransom project has prevented ransomware profits of at least $108 million

On the three-year anniversary of the No More Ransom project, Europol announced today that users who downloaded and decrypted files using free tools made available through the No More Ransom portal have prevented ransomware gangs from making profits estimated at at least $108 million.

Just the free decryption tools for the GandCrab ransomware alone offered on the No More Ransom website have prevented ransom payments of nearly $50 million alone, Europol said.

… Per statistics Europol shared today, most of the site's visitors came from South Korea, the US, the Netherlands, Russia, and Brazil.

… The only oddity in No More Ransom's make-up is the lack of any US-based law enforcement agency. Other than that, everyone else is represented.

I think changing US attitudes would be almost impossible.

https://www.cyberscoop.com/teenage-hackers-police-britain-netherlands/

Teenage hackers are offered a second chance under European experiment

Police in the U.K. and the Netherlands have created a legal intervention campaign for first-time offenders accused of committing cybercrimes, officials explained Tuesday at the International Conference on Cybersecurity at Fordham University. The effort, called “Hack_Right,” is aimed at people between 12 and 23 years old who may be skirting the law from behind their keyboard and not even realize it.

… The average age of an accused cybercriminal is 19 years old, according to Floor Jansen, an adviser to the Dutch National High Crime Unit. There is an “overrepresentation” of autistic traits in those offenders, she said, and the recidivism rate is relatively low compared to other crimes.

… “Most offenders will go to a forum right on the clear web … and buy a remote access tool for $40,” she said. “If they don’t understand what it does, they can call a help desk. So it doesn’t seem too illegal.”

… There is a stark difference in the European and American approaches to cybercriminal enforcement. Bulgarian police last week released a 20-year-old security specialist accused of hacking the country’s National Revenue Agency, and accessing information about 5 million people, most of Bulgaria’s population. Meanwhile, suspects accused of similar crimes in the U.S. often face years in prison.

Perhaps LinkedIn believes requiring personal information is their duty?

https://www.bespacific.com/libraries-contest-lynda-com-learning-site-privacy-issues-with-new-owner-linkedin/

Libraries contest lynda.com learning site privacy issues with new owner LinkedIn

Boing Boing: Linkedin to libraries: drop dead – “For years, libraries across America have paid to subscribe to lynda.com for online learning content; four years ago, lynda.com became a division of Linkedin, and this year, the company has informed libraries that they’re migrating all lynda.com users to Linkedin Learning, which would be fine, except Linkedin only allows you to access Linkedin Learning if you create and connect a Linkedin profile to the system. If libraries accept this change, it will mean that any patron who uses this publicly funded service will also have to have a publicly searchable Linkedin profile. Linkedin’s explanation of why this is OK is purest tech-bro PR bullshit, condescending and dismissive.

Libraries are fighting back: California State Libraries is recommending that libraries boycott the service, and the American Library Association has publicly condemned the move...”

[From LinkedIn’s explanation:

...helping us to authenticate that users are real people and further protect our members.

Mentions some of the organizations working on AI ethics.

https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-regulation-of-ai-should-organizations-be-worried/

The Regulation of AI — Should Organizations Be Worried?

What happens when injustices are propagated not by individuals or organizations but by a collection of machines? Lately, there’s been increased attention on the downsides of artificial intelligence and the harms it may produce in our society, from unequitable access to opportunities to the escalation of polarization in our communities. Not surprisingly, there’s been a corresponding rise in discussion around how to regulate AI. Do we need new laws and rules from governmental authorities to police companies and their conduct when designing and deploying AI into the world?

Part of the conversation arises from the fact that the public questions — and rightly so — the ethical restraints that organizations voluntarily choose to comply with.

… Trust around AI requires fairness, transparency, and accountability. But even AI researchers can’t agree on a single definition of fairness: There’s always a question of who is in the affected groups and what metrics should be used to evaluate, for instance, the impact of bias within the algorithms.