Social-media monitoring

Evidence rule

This page is public-interest research. An argument grade is not a court finding. A watchdog page describes the device. It is not proof a Nevada agency bought it or turned a feature on. A product description is not a Nevada practice. Agencies are not merged: the City of Las Vegas Department of Public Safety, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the Clark County School District, the City of Reno, and the Nevada Department of Public Safety stay separate. A hotlist hit is not a confirmed crime. Legal review of this page is unverified.

What it does

Social-media monitoring uses a tool to search posts, hashtags, and accounts, and sometimes to build a profile of a person from what they posted. EFF says police have used keyword tools and that fusion centers have received dossiers about protests. The tool reads what was posted. It can also misread a joke or a lyric.

Privacy watchdog concerns

Electronic Frontier Foundation. Social Media Monitoring. EFF says police use tools that search social media by keyword or hashtag, build profiles, and sometimes combine posts with face recognition. EFF says fusion centers have received social-media dossiers about protests. This is EFF’s claim. It is not a Nevada monitoring contract.

Constitutional issues

Analogical constitutional argument

First Amendment, Fourth Amendment

Warrant practice not established for a Nevada agency

Social-media monitoring: No Nevada social-media monitoring contract is documented. NAACP v. Alabama does not hold that reading a public post is unconstitutional. EFF’s description of keyword tools and protest dossiers is EFF’s claim, not a Nevada file.

NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). Analogical constitutional argument. United States Supreme Court. NAACP v. Alabama protects associational privacy against compelled disclosure of a membership list. It does not hold that reading a public post is unconstitutional.

Statutes attached to read, not findings.

NRS Chapter 239. Nevada public-records law is the route to ask for contracts, policies, and logs. Citing it is not a finding that a surveillance practice is unlawful.
Nevada Constitution art. 1, § 18. State search-and-seizure provision. This page does not quote the section. No section anchor was verified. It is listed only where a search question is actually implicated.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. A civil remedy for a deprivation of federal rights under color of state law. It is not a warrant statute, and it does not itself make a surveillance practice unlawful.

Nevada use

Not documented on this page.

Capability only.

Next record

Social-media monitoring: Request the contract before describing a monitoring program.

All devices. A document workflow for this page is not built. The arrest correction form is not a surveillance-document inbox. Corrections and source documents for this page follow the corrections policy. Corrections policy.