I think the contrast of these two passages are quite telling: >"Barnett says she and Asher worked together to ensure there was no abuse of TLO. Onsite visits w

I think the contrast of these two passages are quite telling: >"Barnett says she and Asher worked together to ensure there was no abuse of TLO. Onsite visits would be made to clients, who would undergo a strict vetting process. Only those who passed muster were given a login, Walters says. “We were very selective.” and >"It’s used not just by cops but also by debt collectors and private companies carrying out background checks. Private investigators use it to track cheating spouses." So giving access to debt collectors and PIs investigating cheating spouses is selective? I'm guessing the selection criteria is simply whether the customer has the $1,500 a month. The other interesting part I thought was the levels of data weaponization going on: >"Just as the crooks turned the turbo-powered TLO software on its head, cops used the Nests against their owners. In June last year, Postal Service investigator Berkland obtained a warrant ordering Google to hand over all the data related to those cameras. The company complied, shipping surveillance footage back, along with personal details of its owners." Both sides in this piece seem to be thugs. TLO just appears to be a gatekeeper, they get to decide which thugs are the "good guys."