[Teever]

Better idea -- make products that let the public track law enforcement and politicians in the same way that law enforcement is tracking people.

If police don't need a warrant to do something that probably means that it's legal to do, right?

[sneak]

This is an excellent way to learn about how criminal law is not applied equally in the United States, but instead is wielded as a weapon selectively against anyone who would challenge the status quo.

There was a famous case recently where a judge ruled that searching someone's trash didn't require a warrant as they had discarded it and it was no longer "theirs", so cops were within their rights to search through it. Presumably having been granted permission, some journalists then took it upon themselves to inventory and publish the exact contents of the judge's trash, including prescription medicine packaging and such. If I recall correctly, it didn't end well for the journalists.

There are two different sets of laws, for two different sets of people in the US.

[livueta]

The Bork law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act - specifically its genesis) is a fun example of that dynamic.

[JoeAltmaier]

Well, of course there are. "Warrantless search" is one category, and "search by random person" is another. The 2nd is closer to harassment, in some opinions.

It's not quite fair to compare actions by an officer of the court with that of the general public. By design.

[netsharc]

Huh, seems like this argument doesn't go along with the "trash is no longer your property" conclusion.

If you say the police can do it because he's a police officer [... and because of that does it mean he has better judgement?], then why have a law about warrants?

[JoeAltmaier]

Lots of possible differences remain. Entering private property to secure the trash - an officer of the court can normally do that without being considered harassment or trespass.

Being an officer of the court is important, and attempts to blur that are disingenuous. Cherry-picking one facet of the incident is not a good argument. What-about-isms likewise.

[tantalor]

> can normally do that

Not without a warrant

[JoeAltmaier]

If its urgent, or they have reasonable cause.

Again, with the cherry-picking.

[tantalor]

They are the same: a search for no good reason

[lioeters]

Do public servants (ostensibly politicians and law enforcement) have any expectations of privacy while on duty? By definition the public ought to have the right to systematically surveille, monitor, and track their behavior - just as governments do their public, and corporations do their employees or equipment.

It's fitting that the past decade has produced a neologism, "souveillance", to describe this approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance