theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/23/cop-city-protester-phone
consumerrights.wiki/w/Common_Questions,Arguments,&_Responses_when_discussing_Flock_Surveillance
something I feel is important to note: they added CSAM to the list of things they were searching for in order to gain access to his phone.
when the phone was clean (due to the wipe), they did not follow up on that charge
if they truly believed this person to be in possession of CSAM, a warrant should’ve been issued by now to follow up on that very serious accusation. instead, they go after the destruction of evidence.
because they have nothing on this man, and it was a fabricated excuse to gain access to his phone.
They’re doubly mad because they were trying to plant the CSAM
Yeah this thing is almost always followed up by a raid on their homes, their work computers etc.