The Threat of Facial Recognition

Researchers asked experienced police supervisors to rate police reports, some of which were written by humans and some by AI

This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.

City’s police cross a line, breach norms, and threaten to normalize a nightmarish level of surveillance in American life.

Whether Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems violate individuals’ expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.