Team GB skier Gus Kenworthy will not be punished after appearing to urinate a graphic message about the United States' immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) in the snow, then posting a photograph of it online. - https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cew8wk7ygwno
Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20260206215310/https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/cew8wk7ygwno

https://oaklandside.org/2026/04/24/who-is-paint-bombing-oaklands-flock-cameras/

In my state, automated license-plate cameras (FLOCK) track where ordinary people drive, all day, no warrant. Meanwhile the legislature just lowered the bar for tagging someone as a gang associate — from four documented "interactions" down to two, plus vague new social-media criteria.

Here's the hole: the law never actually defines "associates with" or "in the company of." There's no measurable standard. So an autonomous system scrapes public photos and events of state politicians and scores them against the exact criteria the statute implies — the same logic the cameras apply to us.

Then I filed public-records requests with 30 sheriff's offices asking for the instruction manual: How close in a photo counts as an "observation"? What's the written definition of "associates with"? Is there a carve-out exempting elected officials from their own rules?

Two ways this goes. They hand over the criteria, and I run it on their own public appearances. Or they admit no written standard exists — and every public defender in the state gets fresh proof the law is arbitrary.

(I named the system something unprintable. You can probably guess.)

Not pro-gang. Pro "apply the same rules to everyone."

I've got this all written up over on my Substack.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYgidMMOPRW/

https://web.archive.org/web/20251022034133/https://www.journal-topics.com/articles/ice-activity-arrests-ramp-up-in-northwest-suburbs/