zlacker

I think the analogy is rather strong. Where does it differ?

>>jamesh+(OP)
In one case the homeowner has surveillance footage and freely offers it to the police because they want to assist the investigation. In the other case the police seize the footage by force even though the homeowner is totally innocent and might not trust the government with a record of all of their own comings and goings and associates etc.

>>Anthon+ly2
Just confirming that this too is the distinction I see. I'll expand since there is so much confusion around this:

The difference is how information was gathered.

People volunteering information to an authority? Perfectly fine (especially in cases when information was not requested).

People being compelled to provide information? Needs friction (checks and balances).

People being compelled to provide information about others who then unknowningly being investigated? Needs even more friction.

It's also important to note that in the hypothetical that random passerbyers are not being investigated either. A specific type of behavior is being sought. Either the explicit act of the crime being committed or a STRONG correlation with another piece of evidence (such as already knowing what the criminal looks like and trying to find a better view). Random people are not considered suspect.

In the article's case all viewers were considered suspect.