[panarky]

Is there any evidence that Apple fights administrative subpoenas issued by US federal agencies?

Or is Google just more transparent than Apple about the government orders it complies with?

For example, after the Department of Justice demanded app stores remove apps that people use to track ICE deployments, Apple was the first to comply, followed later by Google.

[nomel]

It's a constitutional right to record them doing their duties, in public. That's clear.

Here's a question: Is making a reporting system around that, for the purpose of/approaches/is realtime tracking, also protected? Maybe related to "non-permanence"?

(references welcome)

[autoexec]

> It's a constitutional right to record them doing their duties, in public. That's clear.

Less clear than it used to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Guevara_(journalist)

[frumplestlatz]

Sure it is. The same way it was legal to track and report on CIA "extraordinary rendition" flights using publicly available information.

What is not protected is actual interference or obstruction, and first amendment protections can be lost if the system’s design, stated purpose, or predictable use crosses from observation and reporting into intimidation or operational coordination that materially interferes or obstructs.

Given how these systems are already being used, and the likely intent behind building one, that's a real risk if you're not careful.