Law enforcement are allowed to collect any public data without a warrant.
> Effective law enforcement often requires undercover work, information gathering and surveillance of suspected criminals. Such surveillance should be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity – and ended when that suspicion is dispelled.
> However, when conducted without suspicion of criminal activity, especially when targeted at unpopular political groups, or when intended to profile religious, ethnic or racial minorities, it violates the right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and to exercise free speech, association, and practice one’s religion. The harm to those under surveillance without suspicion is made worse when the information collected about them and their activities is shared by local, state and federal law enforcement, military and security agencies and stored in multiple databases, just in case it might ever become useful.
> In addition to chilling speech, surveillance without suspicion actually makes law enforcement less effective. When authorities are swamped with mountains of irrelevant and inaccurate information, their ability to properly analyze data is compromised. Ultimately, these practices make us less safe.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion
Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist", after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest. To me, that does not sound just at all.
But that would be digital surveillance and I have no reasonable suspicion to surveil you.
If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless.
> after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest
Arrested for what? Police would only be able to arrest if they have a reason, and being an anarchist / going to a protest is not a reason (in the US, at least).
Please don't spread fear and misinformation.
https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/chinn-v-blankenship-complaint
> If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless.
No it is not meaningless. Police see anarchists and alt-right activists as "harboring ideas that are subversive to state control", meaning, you get on their shit list.
> Arrested for what?
The police stopped the car after it was identified as carrying 3 anarchists (stop & search under false pre-text) close to an anti-war protest. A police officer then arrested the driver for seemingly being under the influence of weed, without any evidence or probably cause, and had him locked up at the police station.
So while you are correct that being an anarchist going to a protest is not a valid reason, if the police wants you off the streets (because they classified you as being shit), they will use another reason (such as: "He looked under the influence of weed" or another popular one: "contempt of cop", which rarely carry any penalties for the cops and kind of act like Joker cards so they can go with a gut feeling over solid proof or cause)