So you basically trust your government to do the right thing. Well, call me cynical, but I don't.
"H.R. 4919, which passed 346 to 66 in the lower chamber, also known as Kevin and Avonte’s Law, mandates the U.S. attorney general award grants to law enforcement officials so that those agencies can create, establish and operate “locative tracking technology programs.”"
Create, establish and operate tracking technology programmes, so your claim that it merely extends what is already in place, is false.
I've not made that claim. Apparently you've chosen to interpret it as such.
What I am saying is that the development and application of such technology at the local level is neither implied or intended to be used at the level the federal government uses in applications related to Homeland Security. You're just projecting fears based on the use of technology far beyond the scope and intent of the legislation.
It isn't a matter of "trusting" government to do the right thing. Quite the opposite. It's knowing there are simply too many inherent and c
omplex legal, fiscal and political limitations of state and local governments to take such grants that far beyond the monitoring of developmentally disabled citizens.
Quite to the contrary, in a nutshell state and local governments cannot parse and manuscript federal legislation to their liking. They must follow it to the letter of the law, or risk anything from losing grant access to being prosecuted in a federal court, depending on how they deviate from said legislation. And then there's the predictable sh*tstorm that would ensue courtesy of civilian media and civil rights advocates in the event such grants were being misused.
But most of all, good luck with any state or local government law enforcement agency having the local political authorization and ability to hide implementing such a thing so far outside of both the specific intent of a federal grant, and the sums required to pay for a sophisticated government security apparatus as opposed to simply monitoring developmentally disabled citizens.
Too many routine checks, balances and political opposition and tight budgeting scrutinizing such things in a longstanding shaky economy. Where the lower government authority goes, the more transparent it becomes. Not to mention
an extraordinarily heavy-handed federal government who more or less frowns on the very notion of state and local governments attempting to establish their own national security apparatus.
What you suggest is simply not possible at lower levels of government, giving them far too much credit, power and monetary resources they don't have. It's always a mistake to assume that American state and local political, economic and legal infrastructure operates at the same level as does our federal government. Rest assured, it doesn't.
When it comes to anyone looking after the welfare of the developmentally disabled, I'd much rather see that responsibility fall upon local government and those who may know such people on a more personal level. Certainly more than our federal government, which can be indifferent and impersonal more often than not.
Though the remaining question is quite controversial. Whether or not it's a realistic expectation to see law enforcement and public safety officials take on a greater role of social and mental health work. Personally I like the idea, given it may come down to a case of life as opposed to death for someone having a meltdown in public that is properly dealt with rather than completely misunderstood.
However even at the state or local level there's no guarantee that law enforcement could legally be allowed to implement this beyond the threshold of research and development paid for by a limited federal grant subject to federal oversight. It would still be at the discretion of state and potentially federal court scrutiny and adjudication if constitutionally challenged. Just because the federal government legislates grants to encourage research and development doesn't make the possibility of an end product being inherently constitutional. And if local legislators object to the added fiscal impact, the whole thing is dead in the water. So there are a lot of "ifs" even if the research created a viable system within the parameters of the federal grant.
As for anyone who meets the level of being "a person of interest" to federal law enforcement, intelligence or national security, they don't likely care whether you are neurodiverse or not. Subject to different but legal degrees of transparency and secrecy. And then there's the private sector, which has surreptitiously monitored our purchases, mobility and web surfing for decades. All which continues to disturb a lot of people for good reason.
