pull down to refresh
Wrong. This is law enforcement focused on a person of interest. A practice that goes back at least as far as the Olympics in Atlanta. Your post is simply hinging on the fact that this was related to an abortion. Police and law enforcement monitor innocent people all the time. That's how they eliminate suspects from case hypothesis lists. Thanks to the Internet they now have the ability to go farther and see more. Nothing else has changed.
reply
You concede the point when you say police can now “go farther and see more.”
She was not a person of interest in an unresolved crime. Prosecutors said Texas law did not allow charging her.
Yet one officer still searched 83,000 cameras to find her.
That is surveillance as person finding.
Like many pro-conservative defenses of state power, this changes the subject instead of addressing the claim.
The woman was never charged because prosecutors concluded Texas law did not permit charging her for taking the abortion pills.
The point is not whether police may investigate crimes in general.
The point is that police used a nationwide surveillance network to search for someone they ultimately had no legal basis to charge.
That is surveillance as person finding.