zlacker

>>wut42+(OP)
There are different incidents here.

The first one where the police uploaded videos and wanted viewer information is absolutely egregious and makes me wonder how a court could authorize that.

The next one, which I didn’t fully understand, but appeared to be in response to a swatting incident where the culprit is believed to have watched a specific camera livestream and the police provided a lot of narrowing details (time period, certain other characteristics, etc) appears far more legitimate.

>>addict+J6
I don't understand how either of these are remotely constitutional. They sure aren't what is in the spirit.

They asked for information about a video watched 30k times. Supposing every person watched that video 10 times AND supposing the target was one of the viewers (it really isn't clear that this is true), that's 2999 people who have had their rights violated to search for one. I believe Blackstone has something to say about this[0]. Literally 30x Blackstone's ratio, who heavily influenced the founding fathers.

I don't think any of this appears legitimate.

Edit: Ops [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

>>godels+Zb
OP explicitly agrees with you that the 30k is illegitimate, but that's the only one you address. What's your take on the one where the police became aware that they were being watched on a YouTube livestream while responding to a bomb threat and obtained a court order asking for information about who was viewing a set of local livestreams at the specific times where they were searching for the bomb?

What makes that one different than a court order demanding that a business release security footage that covers the scene of a crime for the time window in which the crime occurred? Or would you consider such a court order to also be illegitimate?