7 ms·

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municip

by cmiles8 2mo ago

Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This middle ground that municipalities try to carve out where it’s fully open to police without a warrant but not subject to FOIL laws doesn’t appear tenable for much longer. There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear police cannot be trusted with the data without better court oversight. It’s certainly a very powerful investigative tool, but needs solid 4th amendment protections. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on geofence searches of cell phone records is a good indication on where the Supreme Court’s head is at on this sort of thing, where they said no you can’t just do blanket data dumps like that without a warrant.

altcognito 2mo ago
Obviously, letting everyone track everyone is not ideal. I assume this is the intent of your proposal.
- glaslong 2mo ago
  Letting the police and government track everyone also seems not ideal. Worse even than letting everyone track everyone.
kspacewalk2 2mo ago
I don't understand why a police cruiser can sit in a public space (or even a private one) and write down licence plates and descriptions of passers-by with pen and paper, or record everything around them with dashcams and bodycams for later use, but when it comes to cameras on a pole this would require a warrant. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by its plate is not an illegal search, is it? Just cumbersome, expensive and likely ineffective. Well, now it's not. A difference in degree (of usefulness and speed), not in kind.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  Because the ability to scale up a bunch of officers sitting around writing down literally everything they see is limited in comparison. It can only be so invasive and “always-on” everywhere. Throwing up a few dozen flock cameras costs a fraction of that and scales incredibly quickly.
  - jameshart 2mo ago
    It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable, even though the population and economy and complexity of the world the government is tasked with regulating scales up. But often the inverse argument is used in respect of private corporations. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect Google to vet every ad and YouTube video uploaded tot heir platform, and make responsible editorial decisions about which ads and content to show to children. Surely to allow them to scale arbitrarily large we must make sure not to overly burden them with regulations.
    - Forgeties79 2mo ago
      > Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect Google to vet every ad and YouTube video uploaded tot heir platform, and make responsible editorial decisions about which ads and content to show to children. I am actually not so sure that’s obvious. I am slowly coming around to the controversial opinion that if they can’t vet what is going up, they shouldn’t be allowed to have an infinite number of uploads/hosted content. They constantly alternate between “don’t worry, we have perfected our algorithms and can catch all of the stuff” and, when they fail, “well you can’t expect us to go over all this stuff. But don’t worry, we pinky promise it’ll be different now.” If I owned 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapsed because of negligence, I don’t simply get to go “my real estate empire is too big for you to expect me to follow the law. Shit is just going to collapse sometimes, deal with it.”
      - jameshart 2mo ago
        I guess it wasn’t clear that I share your opinion that it is not ‘obvious’ that companies should be allowed to set aside accountability in pursuit of scale. I was lending expression to an opinion that seems to be orthodoxy, not supporting it.
bko 2mo ago
> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. What? There is a lot of information privy to police that should not be accessible to anyone. This is such a ridiculous standard. I would want police to know where I live and contact information of my emergency contact for instance, but I wouldn't want that accessible to others. > There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear police cannot be trusted with the data without better court oversight. There have been more cases of "someone broke into my house at exactly [time]. Can you track their license plate and track them down" that I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Those police that abuse their power should be brought to justice and its obviously against policies, but to simply remove their ability to effectively do their job is not the answer
- neodymiumphish 2mo ago
  This is fair, but in my mind, there's still data that's way too accessible for police without proper oversight. What I'd prefer is a system where if the police access it without court approval, they generate a post-access review to confirm that the police did it for a valid reason, such as an emergency. Otherwise, I think any traditional access to that kind of data should have to be via court order.
  - bko 2mo ago
    These companies provide an audit log. This is the obvious answer to prevent abuse rather than relying on courts. Imagine the senior officer or overseer or governing body gets a ping every time a license plate is requested. This isn't a novel problem. Millions of people have access to information like PII in the financial world and they manage it without all the hoops.
- mring33621 2mo ago
  "someone broke into my house at exactly [time]. Can you track their license plate and track them down" Sounds reasonable, but most police departments will not do this, even if the data is available to them and running the query is easy. They will tell you to file a report, preferably online, which will then be incorporated in local stats, and may also be useful in your interactions with your insurance company. But they will not do anything to help your specific case.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
EvanAnderson 2mo ago
> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. I want this data to require a warrant to access. Having said that, I agree that it should be open to everyone if warrants aren't required. I've said this for years and I almost always get the "But stalkers!" pushback. I think "But stalkers!" can be answered with applications to enable individuals to track their stalkers themselves. Since the police have no duty to protect I'd argue tracking a stalker yourself is probably a better solution anyway.
missingcolours 2mo ago
That doesn't seem untenable at all. It's perfectly consistent with legal precedent and current practice. There are MANY cases where the government legitimately possesses personal information that could potentially cause harm if revealed, for operational as well as public safety purposes. Vehicle registration and drivers license records, for example. This personal information is typically exempt from FOIA laws. I can't go FOIA vehicle registration records to look up where a certain driver lives, but the state and police officers do have access to that information. A search involves access without consent. Police don't need a search warrant to perform a search with the consent of the owner. In the case of cell phone data the search is without the consent of the data owner (the phone company). In this case the municipality is collecting public-view data themselves, not without the consent of the collector, so there's no search warrant issue.
- VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago
  You’re missing the point. It seems like you’re saying how things “generally” are, but not how they legally should play out. For instance, among my lawyer friends, they insist that drug-sniffing dogs should require a warrant as well, and a few have said they’d happily take a case like this pro-bono to start putting the goalposts where they belong.
fluidcruft 2mo ago
How is it different from putting out an all-points bulletin? Basically doesn't it just expand the size of the police force and make their eyeballs on the road more accurate?
FuriouslyAdrift 2mo ago
There's nothing stopping you from buying an LPR and publishing the data. Also, with a PI license, you (might) be able to access the nationwide Nlets LPR Index. https://nlets.org/resources/blog/nlets-news-our-nationwide-lpr-pointer-index-live https://nlets.org/resources/blog/nlets-news-our-nationwide-l...
- Scion9066 2mo ago
  There are actually laws against individuals doing this in a number of states.
  - FuriouslyAdrift 2mo ago
    I would be very interested to see how these laws deal with camera systems that do not do ALPR. At work, we had a system that would scrape offline video and pull faces, plates, etc. and identify them and that system is over 15 years old. No AI, no ALPR.
    - Scion9066 2mo ago
      Then depending on the state's definition of ALPR, your work's use of that system would probably be covered by their laws. They don't necessarily require AI to do the analysis or the camera to do the work by itself. There seems to be some standardization of language with many states though: Arkansas': https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117-A.html https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117... > "Automatic license plate reader system" means a system of one (1) or more mobile or fixed automated high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data; Maine's: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/chapter-12/subchapter-18/section-12-12-1802/ https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/ch... > "automated license plate recognition system" means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration plates into computer-readable data. Vermont: https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-23/chapter-15/section-1605-d-1/ https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-23/chapter-15/sec... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration number plates into computer-readable data. California's: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-1-81-23/section-1798-90-5/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a searchable computerized database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data.
mc32 2mo ago
No, not a warrant --but what they should have is an tamper-evident logs with HIPAA-like consequences for abuse. In other words, if you have a case where doing registration plate searches can help, you have a policing reason to search. Willy-nilly search for relatives, lovers, love-interests, rivals, etc. would potentially be a fireable offence --like HIPAA violations. There is no technical reason there could not be technical controls preventing abuses.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago
  >Willy-nilly search for relatives, lovers, love-interests, rivals, etc. would potentially be a fireable offence --like HIPAA violations. There is no technical reason there could not be technical controls preventing abuses. So you're fine with 1984-ish type stuff as long as it's only used to enforce the will of the state and never used by the agents of the state for their own purposes?
  - mc32 2mo ago
    So long as the state represents the will of the people where will of the people is a democratic process that respects the constitution. Each use of the ALPR should have behind it an actual defensible case.
KPGv2 2mo ago
Problem is that Flock CEO still has dirtbag access. Didn't he spy on someone at a conference in public view as part of a presentation of the technology?
vablings 2mo ago
I think here what's interesting is that it fundamentally speaks to data privilege. There are two ways that police/lawyers access data. The first way is they request the data to be provided, usually in civil cases it is kind of "give me the data please otherwise I will subpoena you and that's a headache for everyone" and for LEO, it's give me this data to solve a crime otherwise I will get it anyways via a warrant. The lines start to get very blurry when dealing with things like private ALPRs and Ring/Nest etc. because they have the policy of if a LEO asks we provide (in the case of Ring LEOs have access to pretty much all doorbell cameras) but this is really problematic because although it's an attempt at good faith, they are essentially circumventing the legal process of acquiring this data for investigation since involving a judge is a cumbersome process. But now we have a problem, LEOs are exercising essentially extrajudicial authority by having access to this data. The authority is provided to them by the law (hence why your average joe schmoe can't get this data) but they do not use the mechanisms provided to them to actually get that data. So all data should be provided to anyone regardless of status but if you don't have a lawyer and a reason in a civil case you get told to kick rocks
TheCondor 2mo ago
I'll toss out another alternative idea. Not that I'm against the warrant requirement exactly but I just think it becomes a lot more fuzzy since the data will be managed by private companies that only accumulated it because they already have other ways to monatize it. And it's only one tool that they have to harass people. This is fundamentally a police officer problem. You make it a felony and a terminable offense. You make all or part of the Brady List public and this automatically places an officer on it. ALPRs are just one tool for a police officer to stalk someone, they could just as well park outside their house or place of work and follow them around or do other things. We could require warrants to get the ALPR data but we'd still have these jerks pretending in to protect and serve. In my perfect world, if we had an Amber alert or we knew there was a particularly violent criminal driving a specific car with a specfic license plate, I think it would be a step forward if all of the information was made available quickly and there was a quick and safe capture. Judges can issue warrants pretty quickly when motivated. Likewise, if some officer is stalking his ex-wife or something, cutting off the license plates is a nice step but I'd rather him not be involved in law enforcement at all. I'd love for these datasets to be fully audited, but I suspect industry will balk that the very use of it is proprietary.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
gchamonlive 2mo ago
It needs to be both open and closed by warrant. Cars aren't people so you aren't necessarily tracking whoever is riding that car, which can be done protecting the identity of the driver, but if the car is being watched as part of a larger investigation against an individual, then it needs a warrant.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
RajT88 2mo ago
> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This is how things get regulated. I'm still waiting for a data broker breach which exposes the particulars of congress. That would be quite the shakeup. I think it will happen eventually.
jasondigitized 2mo ago
Good luck with this. These are used for auto insurance fraud and those guys that spend billions on TV ads will lobby hard against this.
SchemaLoad 2mo ago
IMO it shouldn't need a warrant, but it should require the searcher to fill out a form explaining which crime they are investigating with this search. It can then immediately show them results without approval, but with serious consequences for misuse. They could even run some AI over the request forms to spot unusual activity like an officer constantly requesting the location of their ex wife.
krapp 2mo ago
>Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. It is fully open and people can and do exactly that.

by cmiles8 2mo ago

altcognito 2mo ago

Obviously, letting everyone track everyone is not ideal. I assume this is the intent of your proposal.

glaslong 2mo ago
Letting the police and government track everyone also seems not ideal. Worse even than letting everyone track everyone.

kspacewalk2 2mo ago

I don't understand why a police cruiser can sit in a public space (or even a private one) and write down licence plates and descriptions of passers-by with pen and paper, or record everything around them with dashcams and bodycams for later use, but when it comes to cameras on a pole this would require a warrant. Going back through police officers' notes or cruiser dash cam videos and tracking a car's movements by its plate is not an illegal search, is it? Just cumbersome, expensive and likely ineffective. Well, now it's not. A difference in degree (of usefulness and speed), not in kind.

Forgeties79 2mo ago
Because the ability to scale up a bunch of officers sitting around writing down literally everything they see is limited in comparison. It can only be so invasive and “always-on” everywhere. Throwing up a few dozen flock cameras costs a fraction of that and scales incredibly quickly.
- jameshart 2mo ago
  It is a curious ‘small government’ instinct that wants government capabilities to be restricted from ever becoming efficient or scalable, even though the population and economy and complexity of the world the government is tasked with regulating scales up. But often the inverse argument is used in respect of private corporations. Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect Google to vet every ad and YouTube video uploaded tot heir platform, and make responsible editorial decisions about which ads and content to show to children. Surely to allow them to scale arbitrarily large we must make sure not to overly burden them with regulations.
  - Forgeties79 2mo ago
    > Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect Google to vet every ad and YouTube video uploaded tot heir platform, and make responsible editorial decisions about which ads and content to show to children. I am actually not so sure that’s obvious. I am slowly coming around to the controversial opinion that if they can’t vet what is going up, they shouldn’t be allowed to have an infinite number of uploads/hosted content. They constantly alternate between “don’t worry, we have perfected our algorithms and can catch all of the stuff” and, when they fail, “well you can’t expect us to go over all this stuff. But don’t worry, we pinky promise it’ll be different now.” If I owned 10,000 apartment buildings and one of them collapsed because of negligence, I don’t simply get to go “my real estate empire is too big for you to expect me to follow the law. Shit is just going to collapse sometimes, deal with it.”
    - jameshart 2mo ago
      I guess it wasn’t clear that I share your opinion that it is not ‘obvious’ that companies should be allowed to set aside accountability in pursuit of scale. I was lending expression to an opinion that seems to be orthodoxy, not supporting it.

bko 2mo ago

> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. What? There is a lot of information privy to police that should not be accessible to anyone. This is such a ridiculous standard. I would want police to know where I live and contact information of my emergency contact for instance, but I wouldn't want that accessible to others. > There’s been too many cases of police officers stalking exes, poking around the data for fun and such so it’s clear police cannot be trusted with the data without better court oversight. There have been more cases of "someone broke into my house at exactly [time]. Can you track their license plate and track them down" that I'm willing to make that tradeoff. Those police that abuse their power should be brought to justice and its obviously against policies, but to simply remove their ability to effectively do their job is not the answer

neodymiumphish 2mo ago
This is fair, but in my mind, there's still data that's way too accessible for police without proper oversight. What I'd prefer is a system where if the police access it without court approval, they generate a post-access review to confirm that the police did it for a valid reason, such as an emergency. Otherwise, I think any traditional access to that kind of data should have to be via court order.
- bko 2mo ago
  These companies provide an audit log. This is the obvious answer to prevent abuse rather than relying on courts. Imagine the senior officer or overseer or governing body gets a ping every time a license plate is requested. This isn't a novel problem. Millions of people have access to information like PII in the financial world and they manage it without all the hoops.
mring33621 2mo ago
"someone broke into my house at exactly [time]. Can you track their license plate and track them down" Sounds reasonable, but most police departments will not do this, even if the data is available to them and running the query is easy. They will tell you to file a report, preferably online, which will then be incorporated in local stats, and may also be useful in your interactions with your insurance company. But they will not do anything to help your specific case.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

EvanAnderson 2mo ago

> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. I want this data to require a warrant to access. Having said that, I agree that it should be open to everyone if warrants aren't required. I've said this for years and I almost always get the "But stalkers!" pushback. I think "But stalkers!" can be answered with applications to enable individuals to track their stalkers themselves. Since the police have no duty to protect I'd argue tracking a stalker yourself is probably a better solution anyway.

missingcolours 2mo ago

That doesn't seem untenable at all. It's perfectly consistent with legal precedent and current practice. There are MANY cases where the government legitimately possesses personal information that could potentially cause harm if revealed, for operational as well as public safety purposes. Vehicle registration and drivers license records, for example. This personal information is typically exempt from FOIA laws. I can't go FOIA vehicle registration records to look up where a certain driver lives, but the state and police officers do have access to that information. A search involves access without consent. Police don't need a search warrant to perform a search with the consent of the owner. In the case of cell phone data the search is without the consent of the data owner (the phone company). In this case the municipality is collecting public-view data themselves, not without the consent of the collector, so there's no search warrant issue.

VeninVidiaVicii 2mo ago
You’re missing the point. It seems like you’re saying how things “generally” are, but not how they legally should play out. For instance, among my lawyer friends, they insist that drug-sniffing dogs should require a warrant as well, and a few have said they’d happily take a case like this pro-bono to start putting the goalposts where they belong.

fluidcruft 2mo ago

How is it different from putting out an all-points bulletin? Basically doesn't it just expand the size of the police force and make their eyeballs on the road more accurate?

FuriouslyAdrift 2mo ago

There's nothing stopping you from buying an LPR and publishing the data. Also, with a PI license, you (might) be able to access the nationwide Nlets LPR Index. https://nlets.org/resources/blog/nlets-news-our-nationwide-lpr-pointer-index-live https://nlets.org/resources/blog/nlets-news-our-nationwide-l...

Scion9066 2mo ago
There are actually laws against individuals doing this in a number of states.
- FuriouslyAdrift 2mo ago
  I would be very interested to see how these laws deal with camera systems that do not do ALPR. At work, we had a system that would scrape offline video and pull faces, plates, etc. and identify them and that system is over 15 years old. No AI, no ALPR.
  - Scion9066 2mo ago
    Then depending on the state's definition of ALPR, your work's use of that system would probably be covered by their laws. They don't necessarily require AI to do the analysis or the camera to do the work by itself. There seems to be some standardization of language with many states though: Arkansas': https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117-A.html https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/29-A/title29-Asec2117... > "Automatic license plate reader system" means a system of one (1) or more mobile or fixed automated high-speed cameras used in combination with computer algorithms to convert images of license plates into computer-readable data; Maine's: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/chapter-12/subchapter-18/section-12-12-1802/ https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-12/subtitle-2/ch... > "automated license plate recognition system" means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration plates into computer-readable data. Vermont: https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-23/chapter-15/section-1605-d-1/ https://law.justia.com/codes/vermont/title-23/chapter-15/sec... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a system of one or more mobile or fixed high-speed cameras combined with computer algorithms to convert images of registration number plates into computer-readable data. California's: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-1-81-23/section-1798-90-5/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-civ/division-3/... > “Automated license plate recognition system” or “ALPR system” means a searchable computerized database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data.

mc32 2mo ago

No, not a warrant --but what they should have is an tamper-evident logs with HIPAA-like consequences for abuse. In other words, if you have a case where doing registration plate searches can help, you have a policing reason to search. Willy-nilly search for relatives, lovers, love-interests, rivals, etc. would potentially be a fireable offence --like HIPAA violations. There is no technical reason there could not be technical controls preventing abuses.

cucumber3732842 2mo ago
>Willy-nilly search for relatives, lovers, love-interests, rivals, etc. would potentially be a fireable offence --like HIPAA violations. There is no technical reason there could not be technical controls preventing abuses. So you're fine with 1984-ish type stuff as long as it's only used to enforce the will of the state and never used by the agents of the state for their own purposes?
- mc32 2mo ago
  So long as the state represents the will of the people where will of the people is a democratic process that respects the constitution. Each use of the ALPR should have behind it an actual defensible case.

KPGv2 2mo ago

Problem is that Flock CEO still has dirtbag access. Didn't he spy on someone at a conference in public view as part of a presentation of the technology?

vablings 2mo ago

I think here what's interesting is that it fundamentally speaks to data privilege. There are two ways that police/lawyers access data. The first way is they request the data to be provided, usually in civil cases it is kind of "give me the data please otherwise I will subpoena you and that's a headache for everyone" and for LEO, it's give me this data to solve a crime otherwise I will get it anyways via a warrant. The lines start to get very blurry when dealing with things like private ALPRs and Ring/Nest etc. because they have the policy of if a LEO asks we provide (in the case of Ring LEOs have access to pretty much all doorbell cameras) but this is really problematic because although it's an attempt at good faith, they are essentially circumventing the legal process of acquiring this data for investigation since involving a judge is a cumbersome process. But now we have a problem, LEOs are exercising essentially extrajudicial authority by having access to this data. The authority is provided to them by the law (hence why your average joe schmoe can't get this data) but they do not use the mechanisms provided to them to actually get that data. So all data should be provided to anyone regardless of status but if you don't have a lawyer and a reason in a civil case you get told to kick rocks

TheCondor 2mo ago

I'll toss out another alternative idea. Not that I'm against the warrant requirement exactly but I just think it becomes a lot more fuzzy since the data will be managed by private companies that only accumulated it because they already have other ways to monatize it. And it's only one tool that they have to harass people. This is fundamentally a police officer problem. You make it a felony and a terminable offense. You make all or part of the Brady List public and this automatically places an officer on it. ALPRs are just one tool for a police officer to stalk someone, they could just as well park outside their house or place of work and follow them around or do other things. We could require warrants to get the ALPR data but we'd still have these jerks pretending in to protect and serve. In my perfect world, if we had an Amber alert or we knew there was a particularly violent criminal driving a specific car with a specfic license plate, I think it would be a step forward if all of the information was made available quickly and there was a quick and safe capture. Judges can issue warrants pretty quickly when motivated. Likewise, if some officer is stalking his ex-wife or something, cutting off the license plates is a nice step but I'd rather him not be involved in law enforcement at all. I'd love for these datasets to be fully audited, but I suspect industry will balk that the very use of it is proprietary.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

gchamonlive 2mo ago

It needs to be both open and closed by warrant. Cars aren't people so you aren't necessarily tracking whoever is riding that car, which can be done protecting the identity of the driver, but if the car is being watched as part of a larger investigation against an individual, then it needs a warrant.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

RajT88 2mo ago

> Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. This is how things get regulated. I'm still waiting for a data broker breach which exposes the particulars of congress. That would be quite the shakeup. I think it will happen eventually.

jasondigitized 2mo ago

Good luck with this. These are used for auto insurance fraud and those guys that spend billions on TV ads will lobby hard against this.

SchemaLoad 2mo ago

IMO it shouldn't need a warrant, but it should require the searcher to fill out a form explaining which crime they are investigating with this search. It can then immediately show them results without approval, but with serious consequences for misuse. They could even run some AI over the request forms to spot unusual activity like an officer constantly requesting the location of their ex wife.

krapp 2mo ago

>Either it needs a warrant or it’s fully open and people can start creating websites showing the movements of local politicians. It is fully open and people can and do exactly that.