| > So, I suppose that the main point. In these cases, we weren't investigating the individual as a suspect, we were trying to understand the nature of an incident that could affect the safety of others in a relatively linear fashion. That doesn't matter. You're still talking about accessing private, sensitive data about an individual. > I think it's fair that the public has the right to his honesty in this scenario. Yes, and that's exactly why warrants exist. The courts are specifically responsible for determining the outcome of cases in which private rights potentially conflict with public ones (or with private rights of other parties). > Of course, these powers present the potential for abuse, and I'm sure it happens. Just not in the world I ever operating in; our powers and obligations were taken very seriously internally. Having worked extensively in this area, I'll be blunt and say: anytime someone who works in law enforcement says that there are no abuses of power in their workplace, that means either they were so oblivious that they never saw abuses that are occurring around them, or they were so mired in the system that they are incapable of recognizing the abuses of power that they themselves are participating in. Out of charity, I'll assume the former. But to be honest, every time I've spoken at length about this with LEOs, it's inevitably turned out to be the latter. |
I am sure this is often true at the local LE level. But remember, they deal almost entirely with criminal investigations about individuals for things that do not present a broader risk to the public (beyond their continued individual behavior).
In our case, we are not reifying 'the drug menace' to a public level; we are trying to find out if a barge is full of vegetable oil or an explosive polymerization agent. And in those cases, no, I don't think your rights to privacy supersede our obligation to understand if there's a major threat to other people.
> That doesn't matter. You're still talking about accessing private, sensitive data about an individual.
This is true and I can assure you I know quite a bit about what can be in people medical records (I am a MD who has worked extensively in medical records exchange and machine learning). I don't think accessing this kind of data should be possible without genuine need.
> Yes, and that's exactly why warrants exist.
In our case at least, warrants wouldn't even make sense. We were not conducting criminal investigations and asking for access to pursue a person against their will, in response to a crime. We were trying to find out about near-term threats to other people.
I think you and I probably agree on the spirit here - it's just that in our case (and cases like the NTSB or FAA) there are compelling public interests that supersede someones right to privacy. Finding out if you were prescribed benzos so I can charge you for some garbage possession misdemeanor is not one; finding out if there's 30,000 barrels of explosive leaking under a highway is.
No?