- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@programming.dev
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
If there’s no suspicion of a crime, there’s no legal search. So no evidence to gather.
ok but…there was. Regardless of whether it’s legitimate.
No there wasn’t.
You should read the article again. The suspicion was CSAM.
Based solely on the fact that he protested the cops hq. That was their excuse after their illegal search attempt. If there was an actual suspicion, they’d have a warrant and be searching his property, not just holding him up at the airport for a few minutes.
Are you always this easy to fool? We all know this admin isn’t going after actual child abusers.
I am not being fooled. I just understand how our justice system works. There is no rational thought process. Only consideration of the law. The prosecutors won’t say anything about his protesting. They will only cite suspicion of CSAM.
That was the alleged suspicion. They were fishing because they don’t like that the guy is against cop city.
That’s the suspicion they will cite in court.