4 ms·
Specifically, I believe that if information that is held by a private 3rd party I accessed by anyone, law enforcement or otherwise, that third party should be r
by jedberg 6mo ago
Specifically, I believe that if information that is held by a private 3rd party I accessed by anyone, law enforcement or otherwise, that third party should be required to tell you that it was requested and by whom. Just like they can't put a gag order on a search warrant to your home, this hypothetical search would be exempt from gag orders.
- tptacek 6mo agoHuh? There absolutely are gagged search warrants. Didn't you ever get one at Reddit? They're the norm, the default even.
- jedberg 6mo agoNot in your home. They can’t sneak in and search your home and not tell you.
- tptacek 6mo agoHomes might be an exception, I don't know, but I'm of the impression it's routine for police to get physical search warrants with nondisclosure orders attached.
- jedberg 6mo agoYes for sure. Only homes are exempt. Which is why I originally said it should be treated as though it’s still in your home.
- tptacek 6mo agoRight, and my point was, your proposal would proscribe large classes of common law enforcement searches. I'm stipulating the homestead exemption you're talking about here (obvs. neither of us are lawyers), but, given that, you're saying it should be extended far, far outside of homes.
- jedberg 6mo agoThat’s exactly what I’m saying. :)
- tptacek 6mo agoAre you a little concerned that by advocating a drastic change in policing extending far past ALPR cameras that you're creating room for proponents of the cameras to say that everyone who opposes them wants broadly to hamstring the police? I watched ALPR proponents in Oak Park make exactly those kinds of arguments.