Anonymous ID: 79880d Aug. 30, 2026, 7:26 p.m. No.24990749   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0776

>>24990742

>And a picture taken by that camera is not an immediate conviction

 

https://www.wave3.com/2026/08/26/police-pull-guns-vehicle-occupants-after-outdated-flock-alert-unbelievable/

<Police pull guns on vehicle occupants after outdated Flock alert: โ€˜Unbelievableโ€™

<The alert linked the vehicle to a Milwaukee homicide investigation, even though police had already cleared it

 

if you don't see the potential for problems, you're the problem

Anonymous ID: 79880d Aug. 30, 2026, 7:35 p.m. No.24990766   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0772

>>24990739

means the supreme court has a reason to revisit that 2002 case given the technology has changed drastically since they last ruled

there needs to be some legal action that pushes them to revisit a case, that very ruling by that judge may have already started to process of changing it at the SC level