4 ms·
Yeah, it appears they have a lot of things backwards, for example: > “We were very disappointed,” Franklin said. “That means perpetrators of crime, people who
by stingraycharles 8mo ago
Yeah, it appears they have a lot of things backwards, for example:
> “We were very disappointed,” Franklin said. “That means perpetrators of crime, people who are maybe engaged in domestic abuse or stalkers, they can request footage and that could cause a lot of harm.”
The whole point is that they should have been collecting data on perpetrators of crimes only in the first place, not a massive dragnet.
- tclancy 8mo agoIt feels so in bad faith as there’s a claim ICE could use the footage if it’s public domain. They already can and that’s one of the big arguments against it you clowns.
- skeeter2020 8mo agobeyond that it also implies "but the bad guys could then trawl all this data; only us, the good guys should be able to do that!"
- tclancy 8mo agoYeah, that's even more important, isn't it. It begs the question, framing the conversation as "Who should have access to this invasive, privacy-destroying footage" rather than "WTF? Stop this."