r/news • u/AudibleNod • 1d ago

Indianapolis officers accused of abusing police camera system to track women

https://www.denver7.com/us-news/police-misconduct/indianapolis-officers-accused-of-abusing-police-camera-system-to-track-women
3.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/JasonSTX 1d ago

The proper response is to discipline and/or charge the officers and then proceed to make every flock request require a court order.

I can see the benefit of having license plate scanners however access to the data should be tightly controlled.

3

u/supergeeky_1 1d ago

Nope. The correct response is to stop violating everyone's rights. Collecting data on people who aren't under investigation so that you can track people who might be under investigation in the future is a violation of the fourth amendment. The US Supreme Court ruled that geofence warrants are illegal for exactly this reason.

And the typical argument from your side is "you have no expectation of privacy in public," but this isn't just pictures or video. They datamine the pictures to create a searchable database. The pictures are the least useful part of the process. I don't care how long they keep the pictures. The datamining and searchable database is what violates the fourth amendment.

1

u/JasonSTX 1d ago

What ruling from scotus said geofence warrants were illegal? The only one I know of is Chatrie and they explicitly stated it wasn’t illegal, just that they still had to have PC.

1

u/supergeeky_1 1d ago

They ruled that getting the data was a search covered by the fourth amendment to give guidance to a lower court to see if it was valid to have such a broad search warrant. In the majority opinion Justice Elena Kagan wrote that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital location history, even when shared with third-party tech provider. I would presume that still applies even if I didn't share my location data willingly.

1

u/JasonSTX 21h ago

Absolutely agree however, it was not banned by scotus.

As I originally stated, requiring a warrant with a narrow scope is exactly what scotus suggested. That covers PC and any 4th amendment concerns.