Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking.

Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as this article exemplifies. Secondly, because it demonstrates terrible judgment; it seems reasonable to assume they are likely to make other terrible decisions in the future.

"Whenever people have the opportunity to commit fraud and there is no monitoring, you can assume they are committing fraud."

Attempts to damage state power to ensure crime isn’t prosecuted will be likely met with methods that are immune to them.

Given the constraints we operate under, the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero. So being informed that either is non-zero is not of use to decision making in my opinion.

I don’t see how there’s any tension between these statements. The overall occurrence of abuse can be rare while the most common form of the abuse that does occur is of officers tracking people they know.

My opposition wouldn't change regardless but are those outcomes real?

Surveillance technology potentially enables a lot of abuse if used without checks and balances. But the same technology also enables monitoring for abuse. Use of surveillance technology should be actively monitored and supervised. There should be auditable logs, footage, etc. with very long retention periods and active spot checks. In case of conflicts/abuse, there should be ample evidence.

The local pedohunters group dumpen.se in Sweden actually caught a cop trying to meet a fictional 14 year old, and the cop used his access to public CCTV to check the meeting point before going there.

Privacy protects personal dignity, not just illicit behavior. We close bathroom doors, keep journals, and have intimate conversations not because we are breaking the law, but because we value personal modesty and boundaries.

We are quickly approaching a time when we are all guilty until proven innocent by voyeuristic power-hungry psychopathic megalomaniacs who cry the old cry of "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"

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

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

We can pay the regular fees that advertisers pay to have billboards up.

And if we're not allowed to do that, why is Flock?

Within a decade, we ushered in CCTV and automated plate readers to a degree that would make the CCP blush.

That said, warrants protect law enforcement like searching someone's house. It seems that some less intrusive powers like running someone's plate has been given to the police with lower controls.

And it makes sense right? If every judge needed to approve every potential plate check, it might be too much for daily operations.

So option A, push towards everything being protected under warrants.

Sure, option B, how about protection mechanisms that sit somewhere in the middle? For example, what if some powers were audited (sounds like they are logged already) on a probabilistic basis. What if judges could inspect some fraction of searches after the fact, and ask for justification afterwards. Of course this would have no effect on the actual search, but it would have long term effects on future searches.

Even if 1% of lesser searches are audited, I'm sure most policemen would be much more weary about using them for personal matters like stalking women.

> Uses slop AI art

Fastest way to make something into a farce.