> In light of Anthropic’s showing on the merits, and the lack of evidence of harm to Defendants, the Court sets a nominal bond of $100.

That must have been a bit of a goofy check to write.

But the actor in the quote - the people who had to be at the airport to do the detaining - is ICE.

The TSA tip didn't have to come from someone physically sitting in the airport.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/tsa-data-ice-deportati...

> Ms. Lopez-Jimenez, 41, a native of Guatemala, and her daughter, Wendy Godinez-Lopez, were flagged by T.S.A. officials on Friday when they showed up on a passenger list for a Sunday flight from San Francisco to Miami. The agency then tipped off Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the documents.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/us/politics/immigration-t...

> Under the previously undisclosed program, the Transportation Security Administration and Immigration and Customs Enforcement of travelers are sharing names and birth dates of travelers believed to have been ordered out of the country by an immigration judge. ICE can then send agents to the airport to detain and quickly deport those people.

They don't have to be at the airport to do this; airlines have to send them the manifest.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-122/sub...

> Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, an appropriate official of each commercial aircraft (carrier) departing from the United States en route to any port or place outside the United States must transmit to the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS; referred to in this section as the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) system), the electronic data interchange system approved by CBP for such transmissions, an electronic passenger departure manifest covering all passengers checked in for the flight.

> Sooo... where's the retreat?

As the article says; "In the US"

> The decision you're citing explicitly cites precedent for the constitutionality of warrantless mounted pole cameras.

And explicity notes that it's the relative scarcity of them that matters.

> Decades later, in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), location-tracking
technology crossed the line from merely augmenting to impermissibly enhancing. There,
police used a GPS-tracking device to remotely monitor and record a vehicle’s movements
over 28 days. Id. at 402–04. Although the case was ultimately decided on trespass
principles, five Justices agreed that “longer term GPS monitoring . . . impinges on
expectations of privacy.” See id. at 430 (Alito, J., concurring); id. at 415 (Sotomayor, J.,
concurring). Based on “[t]raditional surveillance” capacity “[i]n the precomputer age,” the
Justices reasoned that “society’s expectation” was that police would not “secretly monitor
and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”

> Thus, Carpenter solidified the line between short-term tracking of public
movements—akin to what law enforcement could do “[p]rior to the digital age”—and
prolonged tracking that can reveal intimate details through habits and patterns.

Put enough of them up, and the software to track between them, and you're in "enables police to deduce from the whole of individuals’ movements" territory.

> They don't need a warrant to post monitors and record what they see in plain view in public spaces with no expectation of privacy.

They do if it's done to the point where you can track individuals around the city.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201495A.P.pdf

> The AIR program uses aerial photography to track movements related to serious
crimes. Multiple planes fly distinct orbits above Baltimore, equipped with PSS’s camera
technology known as the “Hawkeye Wide Area Imaging System.” The cameras capture
roughly 32 square miles per image per second. The planes fly at least 40 hours a week,
obtaining an estimated twelve hours of coverage of around 90% of the city each day,
5
weather permitting. The PSA limits collection to daylight hours and limits the
photographic resolution to one pixel per person or vehicle, though neither restriction is
required by the technology. In other words, any single AIR image—captured once per
second—includes around 32 square miles of Baltimore and can be magnified to a point
where people and cars are individually visible, but only as blurred dots or blobs.

> On the merits, because the AIR program enables police to deduce from the whole
of individuals’ movements, we hold that accessing its data is a search, and its warrantless
operation violates the Fourth Amendment

> Why would heavy users of health services be concentrated in the minority cohort that is dissatisfied with their insurance?

"Why would people who drive a lot care the most about gas prices?"

The more you use health insurance, the more chances you have to run into the kafkaesque bits. Someone who sees a GP once a year and thinks their premium is $50/month because that's the bit they have to chip in while their employer covers the rest is largely gonna go "this is fine!"

> Most people with private health insurance like it.

Most people don't use it all that much, and in the common case of employer-paid premiums, the actual cost is significantly masked. As your link notes, the more care you need, the less likely you are to enjoy the experience. They dig their heels in more; sometimes egregiously so. https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...

That has at least one fairly simple explanation: those centers only take lower acuity patients. If you're complex with a history of complications, it'll be "we'll do this one at an actual hospital".

(This is frequently the case for my wife.)

They may also not take Medicaid patients; my state publishes lists of ones that actually do because of this. https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/quality/surge...