> The law enforcement agencies which behaved the way law enforcement agencies always behave and did what anyone with even the slightest familiarity with how law enforcement acts thought they would do with the data. This outcome was 1000% predictable even if the details were not.
It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
In sharing the license plate data, how was the OPD enforcing the law? Which laws, exactly which laws, was the OPD enforcing?
The use was audited and is now being investigated. The claims were for various local and federal investigations. ICE also contains HSI, the second largest federal law enforcement agency, which prior to their recent mandate has been tasked to solve sex trafficking, import fraud etc. SF has multiple large inter-agency task forces that run multi-year long investigations into all types of crimes. HSI is part of those investigations. Querying flock to establish a suspect’s presence during the commission of a crime seems like it’s within the bounds of reasonable use.
Querying which flock to establish which suspect’s presence during the commission of which crime seems like it’s within the bounds of what reasonable use? I think you've replaced the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave with Round up the usual suspects.
> In sharing the license plate data, how was the OPD enforcing the law?
... the immigration laws? Folks should read the immigration laws. They're actually quite draconian against not only illegal immigration, but anyone who aids and abets illegal immigration. We've just had decades of non-enforcement.
No, the immigration laws are not draconian. They have guidelines around reunification of families, etc. The Reagan era Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 even legalized most illegals from before 1982. That wasn't draconian either. You should read these laws.
Trumpian enforcement? Now that's draconian. It's also economically stupid. And I'm sure you understand the concept of clean hands. So further discussion of Melania and Rosie O'Donnell's citizenship will be unnecessary.
But then this all is just red meat tossed to consumers of red meat. So there's that.
> No, the immigration laws are not draconian. They have guidelines around reunification of families, etc. The Reagan era Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 even legalized most illegals from before 1982.
They really are. For example, there's expensive crimes relating to "encouraging/inducing" illegal immigration that could put a lot of people in prison if they were aggressively enforced: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... ("Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.")
Similarly, criminal penalties for knowingly continuing to employ an alien one knows is unauthorized: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual... ("Subsection 1324a(2) makes it unlawful for any person or entity, after hiring an alien for employment, to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is or has become an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.").
> The Reagan era Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 even legalized most illegals from before 1982.
That one-time amnesty was a compromise in return for aggressive enforcement going forward. The pro-immigration folks reneged on that compromise, so now it's mass deportations.
> But then this all is just red meat tossed to consumers of red meat. So there's that.
No, it's vindicating a fundamental collective right to decide who gets to be in this country and who doesn't. It's an effort to undo the effects of decades of broken promises around immigration enforcement: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi...
‘Collective rights’ aren’t in the Constitution. You may wish to read that as well. But I do recognize your sentiment as echoing Trump’s I am your retribution rhetoric. Otherwise, I’m done here.
That's fine, because the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the people.
You are alluding to the Constitutionally inert 10th Amendment.
> It was predictable that law enforcement agencies would... try to enforce the law?
By breaking a different one?
I mean, yeah, it's predictable. But it's not great.
If you think that's bad, you should dig into state agency violations of PRWORA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo.... Lot's of illegal conduct going on in blue states.
What, this?
https://www.feldesman.com/hhs-announces-major-changes-to-its...
> HHS rescinded its 1998 interpretation of the term (63 FR 41658) and expanded the agency’s interpretation of “Federal public benefit” to include programs, including Head Start and numerous community health-related programs.
Yeah, I'm not inclined to view clear and open violations of a law the same as "the Feds said it was fine for 27 years, including Trump's first term".
You'll need stronger whataboutism than that.
There's lots of programs being funded that aren't covered by that HHS guidance.
Then why don't you highlight a specific case we can talk about, rather than darkly but vaguely hinting?
Rayiner, you are supposedly adept with constitutional law.
The state is not allowed to pursue every physically possible means of achieving their justice aims. They are not allowed to overstep their authority period. When they do overstep their authority, it often harms the State's case against the accused, entirely to make it less desirable for a cop to overstep their authority and protect our rights as people in these lands.
For example, a cop cannot just steal a 3rd party's database to get the evidence they are after. They must either get a warrant or consent from that 3d party, following specific and WELL UNDERSTOOD rules.
You cannot possibly pretend to not know this, so why are you being so disingenuous in your argument?
> For example, a cop cannot just steal a 3rd party's database to get the evidence they are after.
Except we're talking about the state's own license plate data, not stealing someone else's data. Since it is California's data, California can complain that Oakland police shared it impermissibly. (Good luck with that!) But that doesn't create a constitutional issue.