> Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. From the article: > The SFPD will also be able

> Whereas police having real-time data means that (at least in principle) they can be where the criminals are. From the article: > The SFPD will also be able to access private camera footage during large-scale public events such as protests, even if there is no suspicion that a crime has taken place. They explicitly want access in cases where there hasn't been a crime. The EFF posts on this legislation also points out that this is likely to not be particularly effective in addressing crime, if the rules laid out are followed. And members of the police commission even asked for this vote to be delayed. This is not actually about stopping crime. > One of those is a sensible outcome No, the outcome which involves all the non-criminals going about their daily lives inside a panopticon is not sensible.