This seems like just a procedural change, right? If I’m a business owner and I have a legally-operated surveillance camera, the police have always been legally able to ask me to turn over footage, and I’ve been legally able to do so without asking them for a warrant.
The warrant would compel me to do so, and without it I can tell them I won’t share the footage, but this shift doesn’t seem to change that: it still hinges on the camera owner consenting.
Sure but consider that in the old regime you would know how often and when the police wanted to look at your cameras (unless they were asking your storage provider rather than you). They would also need to make the effort to ask and justify each time. With this program they would seem to have more seamless access with fewer human checkpoints on the way. You will have to decide whether you think this is good.
What human checkpoint is removed? They still have to ask you, so you’ll still know each time they ask (and thus when / how often).
> Under the new policy, police can access up to 24 hours of live video of outdoor footage from private surveillance cameras owned by individuals or businesses without a warrant as long as the camera's owner allows it.
My reading is that it will be a one-time consent, then they will have access to your camera when they internally determine the circumstances cough warrant it.
This changes the default regime to put more surveillance in the hands of police. In theory this would not matter, since police should have the same legal/investigatory predicate before accessing surveillance regardless of who has custody, but we have indications that this type of access regime is easily abused and accountability mechanisms are not reliable.
The warrant would compel me to do so, and without it I can tell them I won’t share the footage, but this shift doesn’t seem to change that: it still hinges on the camera owner consenting.