DHS’s predictive policing is unconstitutional, un-American and should be stopped
Reported by CoinDesk · AI-assisted summary by ChikoCorp AI News Desk
AI-generated summary based on the linked source; not independently verified. This is not investment advice. Verify market-moving details at the original publisher before acting. See our editorial policy, AI content policy, and financial disclaimer.
Summary
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been using predictive policing by analyzing Americans' financial activities to provide tips to local law enforcement on potential criminals. This method involves mass surveillance and has led to law enforcement stops based on financial data before any crime is committed, which critics argue is unconstitutional and un-American. Cases such as Kyle William Olson and Alek Schott highlight the controversial use of financial surveillance in initiating law enforcement stops without clear evidence.
Why it matters
The source argues that predictive policing based on financial surveillance undermines constitutional rights, specifically the presumption of innocence and Fourth Amendment protections. It raises concerns about privacy, potential abuse of surveillance data, political targeting, and wrongful prosecutions. The article calls for Congressional and Government Accountability Office (GAO) oversight and judicial authorization before sensitive financial data can be used in investigations.
Key context
The Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) collects extensive financial records under the Bank Secrecy Act to combat illicit activities and shares this data with agencies like DHS. There is a history of financial data used to monitor political dissent, as seen in recent examples from the U.S., Canada, and China. The article situates predictive policing within broader concerns about government overreach and data misuse.
Key numbers and entities
The core entities mentioned are the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Department of Treasury, Border Patrol Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team (PITT), and individual cases involving Kyle William Olson and Alek Schott. The source references Congressional reports from 2024 and a 2025 Executive Order from President Trump related to domestic terrorism investigations.
What remains unclear
The source does not specify exactly which financial records DHS used or how it obtained them in particular cases, nor does it provide detailed statistics on the scope or effectiveness of predictive policing. It also leaves uncertain how widespread the practice is across the country and what specific legislative or judicial responses might be forthcoming.