I have to admire the double-dipping business model of private companies getting paid by local governments to setup surveillance cameras and harvest data. Then the same goverment will pay to get warrantless access to that same data.
is it just double-dipping the spending (this might be your point)
or it is actually doing an end-run around laws against governments doing the surveillance themselves, instead they get private companies to do it and then it's perfectly legal to buy the data
just like government buys cellphone tracking data and mortgage data from private brokers when there are laws blocking them doing it directly
is it just double-dipping the spending (this might be your point)
or it is actually doing an end-run around laws against governments doing the surveillance themselves, instead they get private companies to do it and then it's perfectly legal to buy the data
just like government buys cellphone tracking data and mortgage data from private brokers when there are laws blocking them doing it directly