'Golden Age of Surveillance', as Police Make 112,000 Data Requests in 6 Months (newportri.com) 98
"When U.S. law enforcement officials need to cast a wide net for information, they're increasingly turning to the vast digital ponds of personal data created by Big Tech companies via the devices and online services that have hooked billions of people around the world," reports the Associated Press:
Data compiled by four of the biggest tech companies shows that law enforcement requests for user information — phone calls, emails, texts, photos, shopping histories, driving routes and more — have more than tripled in the U.S. since 2015. Police are also increasingly savvy about covering their tracks so as not to alert suspects of their interest... In just the first half of 2020 — the most recent data available — Apple, Google, Facebook and Microsoft together fielded more than 112,000 data requests from local, state and federal officials. The companies agreed to hand over some data in 85% of those cases. Facebook, including its Instagram service, accounted for the largest number of disclosures.
Consider Newport, a coastal city of 24,000 residents that attracts a flood of summer tourists. Fewer than 100 officers patrol the city — but they make multiple requests a week for online data from tech companies. That's because most crimes — from larceny and financial scams to a recent fatal house party stabbing at a vacation rental booked online — can be at least partly traced on the internet. Tech providers, especially social media platforms, offer a "treasure trove of information" that can help solve them, said Lt. Robert Salter, a supervising police detective in Newport.
"Everything happens on Facebook," Salter said. "The amount of information you can get from people's conversations online — it's insane."
As ordinary people have become increasingly dependent on Big Tech services to help manage their lives, American law enforcement officials have grown far more savvy about technology than they were five or six years ago, said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. That's created what Cohn calls "the golden age of government surveillance." Not only has it become far easier for police to trace the online trails left by suspects, they can also frequently hide their requests by obtaining gag orders from judges and magistrates. Those orders block Big Tech companies from notifying the target of a subpoena or warrant of law enforcement's interest in their information — contrary to the companies' stated policies...
Nearly all big tech companies — from Amazon to rental sites like Airbnb, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft and service providers like Verizon — now have teams to respond...
Cohn says American law is still premised on the outdated idea that valuable data is stored at home — and can thus be protected by precluding home searches without a warrant. At the very least, Cohn suggests more tech companies should be using encryption technology to protect data access without the user's key.
But Newport supervising police detective Lt. Robert Salter supplied his own answer for people worried about how police officers are requesting more and more data. "Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
Consider Newport, a coastal city of 24,000 residents that attracts a flood of summer tourists. Fewer than 100 officers patrol the city — but they make multiple requests a week for online data from tech companies. That's because most crimes — from larceny and financial scams to a recent fatal house party stabbing at a vacation rental booked online — can be at least partly traced on the internet. Tech providers, especially social media platforms, offer a "treasure trove of information" that can help solve them, said Lt. Robert Salter, a supervising police detective in Newport.
"Everything happens on Facebook," Salter said. "The amount of information you can get from people's conversations online — it's insane."
As ordinary people have become increasingly dependent on Big Tech services to help manage their lives, American law enforcement officials have grown far more savvy about technology than they were five or six years ago, said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. That's created what Cohn calls "the golden age of government surveillance." Not only has it become far easier for police to trace the online trails left by suspects, they can also frequently hide their requests by obtaining gag orders from judges and magistrates. Those orders block Big Tech companies from notifying the target of a subpoena or warrant of law enforcement's interest in their information — contrary to the companies' stated policies...
Nearly all big tech companies — from Amazon to rental sites like Airbnb, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft and service providers like Verizon — now have teams to respond...
Cohn says American law is still premised on the outdated idea that valuable data is stored at home — and can thus be protected by precluding home searches without a warrant. At the very least, Cohn suggests more tech companies should be using encryption technology to protect data access without the user's key.
But Newport supervising police detective Lt. Robert Salter supplied his own answer for people worried about how police officers are requesting more and more data. "Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
How Will Data be Used in a Politically Neutral Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Will Data be Used in a Politically Neutral (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always found screwing tax payers to be a bipartisan issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad people are finally starting to realize this. "Keep politics out of it" is really saying "we support the political status quo", i.e. it's a political position.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Keep politics out of it" literately means "don't bring up the subject"
It's very difficult, if not, impossible to keep politics out of discussions online. You can however neuter your entertainment to not have a political view, but all you're doing by that is "attempting" to gain the most amount of neutral dollars at the expense of having any moral authority to say anything meaningful.
Every comedy program that has aired since the beginning of the GWB administration has been left-wing. That's because the netw
Re: (Score:3)
It's impossible to not bring up politics, at least not without draconian measures to prevent it.
Say you are married to someone of the same gender. You would have to be very careful to avoid ever referring to them by name or gendered pronoun, and avoid giving any hints like talking about what you might buy them for their birthday. Normal office conversation becomes a minefield.
Maybe you are the procurement person and have to select company vehicles. Electric, diesel or petrol? Hybrid? Is it purely an economi
Re: How Will Data be Used in a Politically Neutral (Score:2)
I just watch which restroom they use. I suppose that this great push for gender neutrality is why there is always a line at the "They" door.
Re: (Score:2)
... with reality having a strong liberal bias ...
The more original quote is “The facts of life are conservative.” -- Margaret Thatcher
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You lose
Re: (Score:3)
"We respect your privacy"
Presumed "person of interest". (Score:2)
But Newport supervising police detective Lt. Robert Salter supplied his own answer for people worried about how police officers are requesting more and more data. "Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
Shocked. Simply shocked that a beneficiary of this kind of activity would say that.
Re:Presumed "person of interest". (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. Also, the reasoning is so full of holes it's not even funny:
- You ain't done nothing but your cellphone happens to be latched onto the same cell tower as a criminal's at the moment of their crime: zap-bam - instant suspect.
- Worse, if you happen to turn off your cellphone at the wrong time at the wrong place, you're even more suspect, because it looks like you're deliberately trying not to be geolocated.
- When you rely solely on computers and cellphones telling on you to catch criminals (dumb criminals), the smart criminals arrange for their computers and cellphones to look completely innocuous, or present circumstantial evidence pointing to another suspect. In other words, over-reliance on technology-based evidence that happens to catch 95% of the careless criminals profit the 5% of tech-aware ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You ain't done nothing but your cellphone happens to be latched onto the same cell tower as a criminal's at the moment of their crime: zap-bam - instant suspect.
Paranoid, a little? If there's no metadata between phone numbers of the criminals, how is being the same area a crime being committed going to implicate you, and not the hundred others in the area shopping, using the same cell tower?
Re: (Score:2)
who said the hundred others aren't also implicated?
Re: (Score:1)
You are a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
You still haven't answered the question. Sure, probably most of those hundred are going to get eliminated pretty quickly, but if you imagine they're not collected and looked at at all, I think you're mistaken.
Re: Presumed "person of interest". (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Presumed "person of interest". (Score:2)
"Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
Well, which one is it?
crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so youre just another brain dead right wing moron, dribbling Fox news bullshit, gotcha.
Re: (Score:1)
I've a actually been through pre-revolutionary and post revolutionary places you couldn't go, alive anyway.
Re: crimes? (Score:1)
Re: crimes? (Score:3)
You people are just arguing with a stereotypical Left Wing Troll. Using "moron" and "fucktard" as an AC* is the online equivalent of wearing a facemask and throwing gasoline bombs at black-owned businesses.
*So they think.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the America that Trump and his supporters created. The America in which those who attack the Big Cheese are not seen as patriots that hold up the principal values of their country or people who think for themselves, but as traitors.
Did you believe that Trump was going to rule America forever and that this could never come back to bite your own ass?
Y
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I know right, until 2016 we all lived in a citizens paradise.
"We kill people based on meta-data" - Donald Trump
no, hang on, who was that now ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He joked so often about doing something about journalists that it gradually became less of a joke.
The Trumps were also so obsessed with blind loyalty that it should make you raise some eyebrows
If he gets a another term, they might make it happen. Fascist America.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing. You should go into business with your mind reading skills.
Re:crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
18 U.S. Code  2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
I, and 99% of other Democrats, do in fact agree looting and vandalism are crimes. Do you agree, based on a plain reading of the above, that your party openly supports a group that committed the crime of seditious conspiracy against the US? Guess which is a more serious crime? Fucking disingenuous liar. And what thought crimes are landing people in prison? Sounds like what criminalizing CRT (it being bullshit notwithstanding) is doing.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You might want to be really careful about such a broad reading of that clause. Doesn't your reading also cover sanctuary cities (or countries or states)? Doesn't it cover protesters who occupy federal property by force? Do you agree that your party supports lots of groups that engage in those behaviors?
Re:crimes? (Score:4, Insightful)
"protesters who occupy federal property" They are routinely taken in custody and sometimes charged with trespassing in so-called "progressive states".
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The January 6th people were also arrested and (consistently) charged. Unlike, say, the rioters who kept attacking the federal courthouse in Portland OR, the January 6th people are being prosecuted en masse.
What you left out of your "arrested and sometimes charged" bit (emphasis added) is that local Democrat officials support the seditious conspiracy of left-wing rioters, and consistently dismiss any local or state charges against them. We will probably see the same from the federal government now, too. S
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't want to open that can of worms.
Sure we do. Sedition is a crime against the USA (gov't). Its specified in the CotUS. If you're not going to enforce that, then what's the justification of enforcing any section and amendment of the CotUS?
The Brits tossed a ton of people away for a long time based on "sedition"
The Brits didn't have video cameras or social media/data trail. I want all of the 1/6/21 convicted seditionists tossed away for a long time. (Mind you, I don't consider people peacefully protesting outside of the capitol building as seditionists.)
Re:crimes? (Score:4, Interesting)
So don't be surprised if people jump to conclusions.
I make this assumption above, because lately I've seen a lot of posts on social media about the police 'catching' the people from January through their social media posts. Maybe you are talking about something different, but it just seems to be too coincidental.
Quite frankly, the development in the US is quite concerning. There's been a lot of red flags ever since people were disappeared by state authorities during and after the BLM riots which reminded me of my lovely Soviet Eastern Europe.
But in general those actions seem to have been met with approval from Conservatives, after all they were 'owning the (most likely) Libs'. I'm sure there were some more Libertarian inclined among them who hated it, but I didn't see that much of a fuzz.
Now we see these kind of concerning red flags continue under the new administration. And you can except that the Democrats currently in power are mostly going to approve, because it affects the "Alt-Right". So I see supposedly Liberals cheering for these traitors to be caught through their careless social media posts. Seemingly disregarding of what those people that have had their privacy invaded actually did or didn't do. They were there, so they're guilty.
Very dangerous collective judgement and collective punishment sentiments I see all around.
This can easily turn into a vicious cycle where the tables are flipped again and again and feelings of revenge make things more extreme every time if people don't stand up and put a stop to this. And since it's a Democrat administration right now, this is something Democrats will have get behind as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people think that both burning down police stations and illegally accessing the Capital were illegal and those guilty should be prosecuted.
Also, depicting the latter as "Walking into a building" is about as disingenuous as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then, there is the entire thing about stripping citizenship away from "terrorists", which can easily be used for protestors.
Can't do it if you're born in the US, just like you can't be PotUS if you weren't considered born in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been a lot of red flags ever since people were disappeared by state authorities during and after the BLM riots which reminded me of my lovely Soviet Eastern Europe.
Can't happen here, as long as the law (habeas corpus) is properly applied. ( You're up Guantanamo creek if you're not a US citizen. )
Very dangerous collective judgement and collective punishment sentiments I see all around.
There's no such thing as (criminal) "collective judgment" (since Korematsu vs US), as long as each seditionist is prosecuted separately, for specific criminal activity. Which was any unauthorized person inside the Capitol building on that date, interrupting the legitimate transfer of power being conducted by the US Congress.
This is how we keep our rights safe; through Rule o
Re: (Score:2)
Where have I heard that before? Yes, I remember. It's what is usually proclaimed before the shit hits the fan.
In cases like authoritarian or dictatorial power grabs upholding any law that is not going to benefit those in power is unlikely to happen.
Look, I'm not saying that things definitely are going to go down the drain, but I'm telling you to be vigilant. Don't be overly paranoid. But don't become complacent thinking that everything is going to be fine if you're a US citizen.
You ev
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not saying that things definitely are going to go down the drain, but I'm telling you to be vigilant. Don't be overly paranoid.
I am being vigilant. I figure if none of these 1/6/21 seditionists are convicted of sedition, then the USDOJ or juries have subverted the Rule of Law. Not punishing these traitors will merely encourage them to repeat their crime.
You even quoted the entire sentence, then why bother taking out of context?
Because there was no people "disappeared" during or after the BLM riots. Being detained by law enforcement authorities is not being "disappeared". They were either charged with a crime, and processed through the courts, or they were released. You accuse me of being paranoid, an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm writing that I see it all around me on social media. Gleeful, presumably, subsets of Democrats, judging by how they talk about Republicans, are people calling for this kind of broad and generalized justice and earn huge mounts of likes for it. You can observe some kind of mob mentality there. Where invasion of privacy is justified merely on the basis of 'I don't like what they did, so they deserve it!'.
I find that quite
Re: (Score:2)
Now we see these kind of concerning red flags continue under the new administration.
Amazing isn't it? No matter "who" has power, it is ultimately the same. It is almost like there isn't really two separate parties.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Newport supervising police detective Lt. Robert Salter supplied his own answer for people worried about how police officers are requesting more and more data. "Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
I got a hot tip that detective Lt. Robert Salter is dirty and I would like to have access to all of his private information. Clearly, he's OK with me knowing all of the details of his life, right?
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is... were the unreasonable search laws put in place so that the government can't find out stuff, or were they put in place so that the government wouldn't come knocking on your door bothering you for potentially no reason? Honest question, I don't know.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
So that the government couldn't persecute people by investigating every part of their lives until they found something to prosecute them for.
Give me 10 lines by the most honest man and I'll find something in them to hang him for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Really? (Score:2)
As long as he doesn't know you, you have a good reason to have access and you have a legal responsibility to keep it to yourself, he probably wouldn't be too bothered.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stay out of trouble"
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a potential go-fund-me initiative.
Surprised (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK police make way more requests than this and the population is only 65 million.
Worse still they have an internal approval process which grants over 90% of requests.
"Don't commit crimes" (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a crass misunderstanding what the role of the police is. The thing is the police only serves (secondary function) to keep crime to an acceptable level and (primary function) to keep the unwashed masses under control. That said, solving all or even most crimes is not a good thing, because it implies a level of control and surveillance that is utterly incompatible with a free society. It universally devolves into a police-state and then into full-blown totalitarianism or fascism. The problem is that most people that become police-persons value the law and order and control over freedom and always crave more control. They usually believe they are the only defense against society sinking into chaos (which is really far from the truth) and think any and all means are fine to prevent that.
That is why the police needs to be carefully monitored and limited in what they can do. These people are dangerous. Sure, they are needed, but letting them or their friends decide what they can do is the road to hell.
Re: "Don't commit crimes" (Score:2)
Re: "Don't commit crimes" (Score:4, Insightful)
They got removal of freedom. I doubt very much they got security.
Re: (Score:2)
The "patriot act" wasn't passed by the police though. People wanted security over freedom, and they got what they asked for.
The Patriot Act was introduced in 1999 and then sat in committee. 9/11 gave an excuse to pass it. Will of the people had nothing to do with it.
Re: "Don't commit crimes" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the American Congress really an expression of the will of the people? Disregarding the gerrymandering etc, the people still seem to only feel there are 2 choices, with both those choices supporting the patriot act.
Re: (Score:2)
The "patriot act" wasn't passed by the police though. People wanted security over freedom, and they got what they asked for.
Every living being wants security and providing security is the foundation of every state. Policing agencies wrote the law and citizens were told this would keep them safe and god-damnit only terrorists don't want to be "Patriots." Few people have the time or inclination to understand the details of laws, if the law had been more accurately named as the "surveillance and monitoring act" I strongly suspect that it would have been far less popular.
Re: (Score:2)
solving all or even most crimes is not a good thing
No, not at all. If solving a crime is bad, than it should not have been defined as a crime in the first place. full stop there is no more to that discussion.
We struck a balance when the US was founded on theory that permitting some crimes to go undetected/unsolved/unpunished was an acceptable compromise vs the alternatives. Which historically had let to a great deal of abuses. Namely various layers of government and law enforcement targeting individuals and groups for political or personal reasons. "I don't much care for Jim's Judaism being a good Catholic and the sheriff, so I'll search his house routinely and pat him down on the street." Next of course a lot of possession type crimes got invented that would go undetected for sure unless you were a target.
So as a nation we decided before the government could rifle through your personal effects and take things from your for examination they had to have some semi-publicly visible reason to suspect you'd committed or where engaged in commission of a crime.
The argument goes that if laws are not every enforced they are rarely followed, when one law isn't routinely ignored it decreases general respect for the law. So generally we should not have laws we are not able to enforce within the bounds of our probable cause framework. I would further suggest that if there are laws we don't want enforced, say your sodomy laws things like that, we should repeal and avoid enacting similar in the future. Selective enforcement can never be anything but a tool for inequality. Bob gets the book thrown at him because he is to old/male/the wrong color/etc while Jessica does not get charged she is young and pretty, both were found to be in possession of the same model vibrator etc. If a criminal law is on the books it should be enforced for every, every time it possibly can; if society does not like the outcome the legislature can change the law.
So that modern technology makes escaping detection harder does not have to be a bad thing. It can/could be a great catalyst to teach society the value of resisting bad laws. You know there will be a picture of you without your fucking mask on at the beach and you will get fined, so guess what we should avoid empowering government to make such rules ( FUCK YOU BY THE WAY gweihir ). The real key here to make sure that surveillance captive to some privacy respecting framework that resists targeting of individuals. I don't really know how that can work. Because if you let law enforcement make requests without judicial oversight - you are back to targeting, if you encourage digital service providers to report - well than they just become the ones doing the targeting using the legal system as cudgel. So really we should just fall back on expanding Amendments 4 and 5 to cover any third party electronic service where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy; a private/members only facebook group for example; and bar providers for analyzing any content in those places that isnt 'public' but absolutely encourage law enforcement to data mine and search everything that is public as often and effectively as possible and prosecute based on it whenever they can!
Re: (Score:2)
solving all or even most crimes is not a good thing
No, not at all. If solving a crime is bad, than it should not have been defined as a crime in the first place. full stop there is no more to that discussion.
Which just means you do not even begin to understand things. Have a look at the history of totalitarianism some time, how it commonly gets established and how it gets maintained. Might get you a minimal clue how very fundamentally wrong you are. In addition, you may want to look at the actual preventative value of punishing people for crimes. Hint: It is almost non-existent.
Re: (Score:2)
Right totalitarian regimes work by doing exactly what you are always advocating criminalizing this and that that you know everyone is doing, or people you don't like happen to do and than selectively enforcing those rules.
You amimoji and rlsivergun are basically the worst of humanity on display every day here!
Re: (Score:2)
and (primary function) to keep the unwashed masses under control.
No, to keep them lawful. The police can only substantially interfere in a person's life based on violation of a predefined law.
That said, solving all or even most crimes is not a good thing, because it implies a level of control and surveillance that is utterly incompatible with a free society.
Spoken like a true criminal.
It universally devolves into a police-state and then into full-blown totalitarianism or fascism.
"...which only can be ideally avoided by becoming a Communist state." Just because you have a dipshit belief, doesn't mean the belief is correct.
That is why the police needs to be carefully monitored and limited in what they can do.
Well, we agree on something. The limitation is the Law, btw.
These people are dangerous.
Only if allowed to subvert the Law.
Re: (Score:2)
and (primary function) to keep the unwashed masses under control.
No, to keep them lawful. The police can only substantially interfere in a person's life based on violation of a predefined law.
Ahahahahahahaha, best joke all day!
Re: (Score:2)
Weird. Everything you said but this
They usually believe they are the only defense against society sinking into chaos (which is really far from the truth)
sounded reasonable.
Without a police force of some sort, it would literally be "Mad Max" out there. If you removed the police, society would immediately form a protective force against aggressors. Those people would, in time, become the new police force.
I have to question the rest of your words, which I agree with, if you are unable to see one of the most basic "ideas" about police.
112,000 data requests, so what is the (Score:3)
it's just a beginning of Surveillance State (Score:2)
Fun parts are coming.
here is the current state in EU:
https://www.reddit.com/r/consp... [reddit.com]
private surveillance is coming (Score:2)
They have been doing this all over EU for quite some time.
They were using existing anti-terroristic framework to sideline, imprison or remove anyone that might be nuisance for their plans.
Most of the rest are put under constant surveillance under some bogus charge.
So, we have explosion of street thugs, employed as "private security" that have been handed advanced HW/SW:
https://www.reddit.com/r/consp... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The stasi would have loved this... (Score:2)
"Don't commit crimes and don't use your computer and phones to do it."
What about those who are suspected of crimes but found to be innocent? Will they receive compensation for the unnecessary invasion of their privacy? There also needs to be probable cause, how are these requests reviewed and are they later disclosed to the suspect so they can be reviewed and challenged?
Re: The stasi would have loved this... (Score:2)
How were they harmed? The social media companies had access to all the same data for advertising purposes already, they already bargained away their privacy to begin with.
Re: The stasi would have loved this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you won't be surprised if he talks to the police about what he saw in your kitchen.
Re: The stasi would have loved this... (Score:2)
Future crime documentaries and books (Score:2)
There are often several documentaries and books about one crime, especially if it was solved successfully by a star detective.
It is not possible to write an interesting nonfiction book or to film a documentary if one does not have insights into actors' minds via messages, images, videos, GPS coordinates, etc. There is a lot of money in this industry.
Thinning the herd (Score:2)
"Everything happens on Facebook," [Lieutenant] Salter said. "The amount of information you can get from people's conversations online â" it's insane."
A person with a nasty, perverse frame of mind might suggest that it's mostly stupid felons who discuss their nefarious plans on social media. Other criminals may be less forthcoming. They could even go a step further and use such platforms to leave misinformation around for snoopers to encounter, actively shaping any investigation into their crimes.
Just retaliate (Score:2)
Just go to your local police department and FOI-ask for the shift-plan, all their emails from last week, a list of their salaries and so on, they have to give it to you but they hate it.
Re: (Score:2)
And Russia. You forget Russia.
Harry Buttle or Tuttle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares! He fits the profile & we've got quotas to meet. Let's send in a SWAT team to apprehend this villain.
It's life imitating art but Silicon Valley has put it on steroids so that it's even worse than Terry Gilliam's & George Orwell's worst nightmares.
'Don't do the crime' how about don't be a creeper? (Score:2)
I have dashcam footage showing citations for invented infractions, but it's so common as to be 'so what?' boring. Being actually innocent is no defense.
This isn't just a 4th amendment issue. This allows FB to have anyone prosecuted by placing them at the scene 'via a glitch... oops'. It's a good thing FB is so in
Re: (Score:2)
I have dashcam footage showing citations for invented infractions, but it's so common as to be 'so what?' boring. Being actually innocent is no defense.
Could you please provide a few examples of invented citations that you recorded on your dash cam?