LOL, I concede nothing. That kind of argument is like trying to say Police are doing something unethical and new when they decide to buy a car that can go 300mph versus the previous norm of 150mph. There is no legal regulation on the police using the Internet and new technology to do their existing work. As long as they are not violating existing laws, they are as free as you are to use those resources and change their business practices to be more effective. You can't argue the benefits of Internet are available to everyone but the police and try to argue that's privacy. It isn't. And the police don't need a prosecutor's blessing or charge to pursue a person of interest. There is a legal concept called "discretion," also approved by the Supreme Court, that allows the police to make decisions in the field legally when pursuing a possible criminal activity. It doesn't need to be declared ahead of time; this is often confused with the need for a subpoena or warrant, which involves searching private assets or property.

I don't argue its surveillance. So what. It's nothing new, just the toy being used is new, which is what makes it so provocative. If this was an officer using 83,000 cameras to track a suspected mafia mob boss this post discussion wouldn't even be happening. Again, the only issue here is the offense that it was used to track someone who had an abortion.

Why am I pushing back on this then? Because I get really tired as a liberal of seeing liberal posters desperately put out red-herring statements and alarmist posts that have no actual basis in offense or violation. It gives the rest of us a bad name, especially when the research on the post is not well done. Again, this kind of surveillance has been around for decades. The toy is different and currently controversial, that's all.