Also I think the US has a real problem with valuing personal well being over societal well being somehow being warped into being a virtue. If you cheat on your taxes and manage to save 5$ while depriving the US Government of 20$ then you're a hero - this slippery slope has led acting in a morally grey manner for your own benefit being seen as a strength which makes it much more societally acceptable for people who contribute to systems of oppression (facial recognition and people tracking, supporting the spread of disinformation, helping to erase painful truths from public consciousness) to be viewed as "winners" so long as they walk away with a fat check.
It's hard for me to tell if this has always been a valued virtue, but having grown up in the US it certainly was an apparent virtue that I was imbued with - somehow we need to work at changing that.
That being said, I am tired of people vilifying the police and taking indiscriminate actions against them. The reality is that law enforcement performs a valuable role in society, yet it is also an institution that has serious issues to resolve. Those issues will be difficult to address with an antagonistic relationship. It creates barriers to questioning when the police are needed, what roles are better fulfilled by other institutions, and how we ensure that officers are accountable to the communities that they serve.
I suspect that it would be far more effective to place pressure on the government rather than the police simply because the scope of the problem is outside of the domain of the police. It is legislation that dictates what roles are taken by the police and which are taken up by other agencies (as well as how funding is allocated between those agencies). Legislation also determines the what and how of police accountability, which limits the consequences that officers face due to acts of negligence or malice.
50% of the rules for our socialisation are encoded in the 'ether' which is to say the rituals, norms, policies, procedures of what is considered 'normative' in any region, organisation, community. In most 'old world' countries you see these rules as thick as sauce everywhere, and of course they can be suffocating and often a roadblock to progress. But usually they provide the foundations for good social behaviour as well.
The Scandinavian countries are like this - visiting those places it feels a little bit like a nation-sized cult, where everyone is obeying an invisible set of rules. But it would appear differently to them obviously, if their instinct is to closely match their peers behaviour and adhere to whatever norms are there. The Swedish press, in particular, doesn't feel like a 'free press' as we would have it, but rather a loose set of groups acting in an ordained fashion for the 'good of society'. They act like a collective version of the BBC or CBC - the official mandate is not there ... but the cultural mandate is just the same. From the outside, it looks like a lack of 'freedom of the press' and maybe paternalistic, but they would see it differently of course.
In the 'new world', absent those implied rules, and possibly with the support of neoliberal ideals, and also the notion that 'everyone is doing it' - it's just easy to think in more narrow, self-oriented terms, and so you get these kinds of attitudes.
I do however believe that most researchers are a fairly pro-social, moral bunch, and I also believe that most police are as well and their intentions are mostly good and so I'm doubtful of existential concern here, other than to say ... we need to 'keep an eye on it' and think about issues thoughtfully. I'm more concerned about unecessary surveillance, lack of judicial oversight and process, than any kind of algorithm.