People seem to think social media is akin to private communications where it's more akin to the public square. Making your IG/FB/whatever profile private doesn't change that.
In NYC for example, there's been a large uptick in teen shootings, many adjacent to schools, and a lot of it involves the idiots posting on social media before & after. One tool could be simply scraping social media for these postings. Another alternate, pre-internet tool was stop&frisk.
While you have a constitutional right to not be searched without consent/probably cause, you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence. What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law.
Putting out an IG post of yourself with illegal guns or inciting a shooting is no more private than printing out posters of the same and putting them up around the neighborhood.
Actually, in the U.S., you literally have that specific constitutional right.
The First Amendment protects "spouting off in the public square without consequence" via the Freedoms of Assembly (the right to gather), Speech (say what you like without consequence), Religion (believe what you like), and the right to petition the government.
Loud complaining or even vague and non-specific threats (such as "I'll make you pay for this!") are actually protected by the First Amendment.
There are very rare and limited exceptions, such as "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes, but "spouting off" is not, and must never be, a crime.
If someone tells you something in private in a public square in a way that nobody else in the public square can hear it, like lowering the volume of their voice so nobody else can hear, then it is possible to discuss in private in a public setting. There is no obligation to immediately share that private information with the entire public square just because the public square was used. This isn't some FOSS with a licensing agreement that says it must be made public.
You can use the features of a social platform to share with a chosen group of people while not allowing the entirety of the platform access. That's what private means. Not respecting that for sake of "it's a public platform" is just that person being a dick. Whether that's you holding this opinion or a scrapper justifying their manner if not respecting the poster's intent, it's all people with utter lack of respect. It's an AB conversation, and you're trying to be C. We've already indicated you're not the intended audience by setting to private. You doing everything you can to get around that is, again, you being a dick
like I can say what I want, but if I say "I DID CRIMES" then guess what.. that could be used as evidence that I DID CRIMES
Having public conversations and having cops insert themselves is.. actually really well established case law. Yes the cops can listen in when you have no expectation of privacy.
We don't want cops having and abusing backdoors but "playing the game" is perfectly legit. The cops do not owe you some sense of playing gently.
By my reading, it wasn’t OP who did this conflating.
I'm not sure this is the sentence you meant. Of course anybody can listen in when you have no expectation of privacy. Without a court ordered search warrant, they can't listen in when you do have expectation of privacy.
If a cop were to gain entry, or have a paid informant gain entry, whether by paying a cover, or bluffing association with a regular, that seems well within the law.
This is not someones house, or your bedroom, or the cops picking a lock & busting down a door. Social media is just an online "third place". It is not work, it is not your home, it is not private.. it is public square, even if you mark yourself "private" and only accept 200 followers instead of 300.
Just like posting things on your social media profile and 1000s of people see it instead of 100s of people you intended.
Another offline analogy would be - talking on your cellphone, you have the right to be free of warrantless wiretap.
However, if you sit down in a bar that you thought "was cool" and take a phone call, but the bar happens to have accidentally let a cop or "narc" in .. and they overheard your end of the phone call because you talk too loud, then what they testify hearing is totally admissible in court, and you are an idiot.
"spouting off..used against you in a court of law"
But, even if the OP didn't intend for these two to be tied together in this way, then a very strong constitutional right still exists for spouting off, so whether conflation occurred or not is moot.
Facebook is not private, neither is Twitter, especially not the profiles on Facebook.
It's not only unethical and illegal, it is easily proven to be both. Law enforcement in the United States has, as its ultimate authority, a foundational legal document known as the Constitution. This document makes it very clear that it is illegal to search someone's (not even citizen, mind you, this applies to all humans) person, papers, or effects without a warrant.
The only reason to "scrape social media" is when you're doing it without a warrant. If you have a warrant, it becomes quite easy to request that data directly from Facebook.
> People seem to think social media is akin to private communications where it's more akin to the public square.
In any other argument, I would agree that it is a "public square". But the police specifically aren't permitted into this public square when acting as police officers. It is unethical and illegal.
> While you have a constitutional right to not be searched without consent/probably cause,
No, not even those things are sufficient. You have a right to not be searched without a properly issued search warrant.
> you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence.
In fact, you do actually have this right.
> Putting out an IG post of yourself with illegal guns
You cannot post on IG with "illegal guns". The only thing IG allows you to post are pixels in raster images. Photoshopping yourself holding the BFG-9000 isn't a crime, and it's not even "probable cause".
“Spouting off” is an idiom that can also mean “speaking without a filter” and that’s what OP meant in this case.
Do you have a citation for this that doesn't just parrot an NYPD source?
Then you come back with: "but you speak in a way that more people hear you than intended.."
You just changed what I specifically said so it would fit your narrative. Yes, you can be in a bar and think you're talking quietly, but the 3 pints and 2 shots you've consumed means that you're still yelling, just means you're a drunken fool. If you're in a restaurant or some other public setting while sober, you can actually talk to someone without the rest of the public hearing.
You can have whatever wishes you want, but if you are behaving inconsistently with the truth, you're going to spend a lot of time being wrong and having your wishes disobeyed.