I&#x27;m not appreciative of your continued attempt to conflate very separate issues in order to attempt to prove some &quot;this is bad&quot; point.<p>I&#x27;ll reiterate: If you want to engage someone about unfair judgements against certain classes, I&#x27;m not that person. It&#x27;s only relation to the situation at hand is that it is a source of <i>copias pro fine</i> warrants.<p>&gt; Even from a strictly legal perspective, detainment for a civil judgement based upon evidence from a massive domestic surveillance dragnet is very Constitutionally suspect.<p>The enabling part of this on the officer&#x27;s side is not a &quot;massive domestic surveillance dragnet&quot;. It&#x27;s OCR tied to a database query. It&#x27;s automation of a search the officer could already perform, if he could type fast enough.<p>As I&#x27;ve already stated, I agree with the EFF&#x27;s position about the sharing of data back to Vigilant Solutions. <i>Especially</i> because sharing this data back is not necessary for the technology as used by the officers.