I understand it is unconstitutional. My point is that it simply does not matter to the cops. Again, the easier thing is to not have cameras at all. Systems can be circumvented. Not having the cameras at all makes it so nobody can abuse them. Mass surveillance is not necessary or good.
I mean, not doing mass surveillance altogether sounds like a great idea… I’m not sure that’s directly possible right now though
My point is that it’s not just a worse version of mass surveillance, it’s orders of magnitude worse. It absolves everyone from any actual responsibility, and in doing so absolutely guarantees these systems will be abused by police
It’s not about the court’s enforcement, it’s about responsibility
Every organization out there preserves itself. It’s why we have legal and HR departments. They don’t exist to protect their people, they exist to protect the organization
If a police department was caught wildly misusing unconstitutional searches, every case they tried in that period is opened to that exposure. That’s not just a huge embarrassment, it’s a massive amount of work that will tie up the local justice system for a significant period
That’s the kind of damage that can kill a police department wholesale, or at least cleanly sweep away all the leadership
The organization will protect itself against this kind of thing, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because organizations must preserve themselves or fade away. They’ll put in checks that will leave an audit trail and/or require a document ID to use such a system, because that’s what it takes to protect the organization. They’ll offload the responsibility onto the officers, and enforce the rules (even if just a slap on the wrist). That’s simply how organizations act, descriptively
I’m not saying that police in charge would be better, so much as this situation is so much worse. No one has responsibility here. The private company is not limited by the Constitution, and the police are just using a subscription to a commercial service
No one has to take responsibility if this turns into an issue. It’s the same as consulting companies and AI rejections - the primary purpose is to make it so when someone creates manmade horrors beyond comprehension, no one is responsible
I 100% get where you’re coming from. I don’t even disagree that it is a simple excuse to ignore responsibility. From experience, I know police departments simply don’t care about that. Look at Seattle Police. They spent 13 years under federal oversight, marginally improved, then the feds ended it, despite still being incredibly horrible to non-white, non-straight people.
I understand it is unconstitutional. My point is that it simply does not matter to the cops. Again, the easier thing is to not have cameras at all. Systems can be circumvented. Not having the cameras at all makes it so nobody can abuse them. Mass surveillance is not necessary or good.
I mean, not doing mass surveillance altogether sounds like a great idea… I’m not sure that’s directly possible right now though
My point is that it’s not just a worse version of mass surveillance, it’s orders of magnitude worse. It absolves everyone from any actual responsibility, and in doing so absolutely guarantees these systems will be abused by police
I don’t that level of faith in the court, especially the SCOTUS, to have that level of optimism.
It’s not about the court’s enforcement, it’s about responsibility
Every organization out there preserves itself. It’s why we have legal and HR departments. They don’t exist to protect their people, they exist to protect the organization
If a police department was caught wildly misusing unconstitutional searches, every case they tried in that period is opened to that exposure. That’s not just a huge embarrassment, it’s a massive amount of work that will tie up the local justice system for a significant period
That’s the kind of damage that can kill a police department wholesale, or at least cleanly sweep away all the leadership
The organization will protect itself against this kind of thing, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because organizations must preserve themselves or fade away. They’ll put in checks that will leave an audit trail and/or require a document ID to use such a system, because that’s what it takes to protect the organization. They’ll offload the responsibility onto the officers, and enforce the rules (even if just a slap on the wrist). That’s simply how organizations act, descriptively
I’m not saying that police in charge would be better, so much as this situation is so much worse. No one has responsibility here. The private company is not limited by the Constitution, and the police are just using a subscription to a commercial service
No one has to take responsibility if this turns into an issue. It’s the same as consulting companies and AI rejections - the primary purpose is to make it so when someone creates manmade horrors beyond comprehension, no one is responsible
I 100% get where you’re coming from. I don’t even disagree that it is a simple excuse to ignore responsibility. From experience, I know police departments simply don’t care about that. Look at Seattle Police. They spent 13 years under federal oversight, marginally improved, then the feds ended it, despite still being incredibly horrible to non-white, non-straight people.
https://southseattleemerald.org/voices/2025/10/23/opinion-seattle-police-are-not-reformed-ending-federal-oversight-betrays-public-safety