7 January 29 - February 4, 2026 dallasobserver.com DALLAS OBSERVER Classified | MusiC | dish | Culture | unfair Park | Contents Targeting the Watchers Documentation can be the difference be- tween an official narrative and an evi- dence-based public record. Courts in much of the U.S. have recognized a First Amendment right to record police in pub- lic while they perform official duties, sub- ject to reasonable restrictions. For example, you can’t physically interfere with the police. However, that right is uneven across ju- risdictions and vulnerable in practice, espe- cially when police claim someone is interfering, or when state laws impose dis- tances people must maintain from law en- forcement actions — practices that chill filming. While understanding the legal land- scape of recording law enforcement is im- portant, your safety is also a major consideration. In the days after Good’s kill- ing, Minneapolis saw other viral clips doc- umenting immigration enforcement and protests, along with agents’ forceful en- gagement with people near those scenes, including photographers. It’s difficult to know how many people have been targeted by agents for recording. In Illinois in late 2025, the U.S. Press Free- dom Tracker, operated by advocacy group Freedom of the Press Foundation, docu- mented multiple incidents in which jour- nalists covering ICE-facility protests reported being shot with crowd-control munitions or tackled and arrested while filming. These incidents underscore that docu- mentation isn’t risk-free. There is an addi- tional layer of safety beyond the physical to consider: your increased risk of digital ex- posure. The legal right to record doesn’t prevent your recording from becoming data that others can use. Both Camera and Tracking device In practical terms, smartphones generate at least three kinds of digital exposure. The first is identification risk, includ- ing through facial recognition technology. When you post footage, you may be shar- ing identifiable faces, tattoos, voices, li- cense plates, school logos or even a distinctive jacket. That can enable law en- forcement to identify people in your re- cordings through investigative tools, and online crowds to identify people and dox or harass them, or both. That risk grows when agencies deploy fa- cial recognition in the field. For example, ICE is using a facial recognition app called Mobile Fortify. Facial recognition accuracy isn’t neutral either. National Institute of Standards and Technology testing has documented that the technology does not perform equally across demographic groups, meaning the risk of misidentification is not evenly distributed. For example, studies have shown lower rec- ognition accuracy for people with darker skin color. Second is the risk of revealing your loca- tion. Footage isn’t just images. Photos and video files often contain metadata such as timestamps and locations, and platforms also maintain additional logs. Even if you never post, your phone still emits a steady stream of location signals. This matters because agencies can obtain location through multiple channels, often with different levels of oversight. Agencies can request location or other data from companies through warrants or court orders, including geofence warrants that sweep up data about every device in a place during a set time window. Agencies can also buy location data from brokers. The Federal Trade Commission has penalized firms for unlawfully selling sensi- tive location information. Data brokers col- lect location data from people’s phones and sell it, including to law enforcement and fed- eral agencies. Agencies also use specialized “area monitoring” tools: ICE purchased systems capable of tracking phones across an en- tire neighborhood or block over time, rais- ing civil liberties concerns. The tools could track a phone from the time and place of a protest, for example, to a home or workplace. There are more pathways for tracking than most people realize, and not all are con- strained by the courtroom rules people pic- ture when they think “warrant.” The third type of potential exposure is the risk of having your phone seized. If police seize your phone, temporarily or for evidence, your exposure isn’t just the video you shot. It can include your con- tacts and message history, your photo roll, location history and cloud accounts synced to the device. Civil liberties groups that publish pro- test safety guidance consistently recom- mend disabling the face and fingerprint unlocking features and using a strong passcode. Law enforcement officials can compel you to use biometrics more easily in some contexts than reveal memorized secrets. Digital Safety When Recording Police This isn’t legal advice, and nothing is risk- free. But if you want to keep the account- ability benefits of filming while reducing your digital exposure, here are steps you can take to address the risks. Before you go, decide what you’re opti- mizing for, whether it is preserving evi- dence quickly or minimizing traceability, because those goals can conflict. Harden your lock screen with a long passcode, dis- able face and fingerprint ID, turn off mes- sage previews and reduce the risk of what you carry by logging out of sensitive ac- counts and removing unnecessary apps. Even consider leaving your primary phone at home if that’s realistic. If you’re worried about your recording being deleted, plan ahead for how you’ll se- cure the footage. You can either send it to a trusted person through an encrypted app or keep it offline until you’re safe. While filming, keep your phone locked when possible using the camera-from-lock- screen feature and avoid livestreaming if identification risk is high, since live posts can expose your location in real time. Focus on documenting context rather than creating vi- ral clips: Capture wide shots, key actions and clear time-and-place markers, and limit close-ups of bystanders. Assume faces are searchable, and if you can’t protect people in the moment, consider waiting to share until you can edit safely. Afterward, back up securely and edit for privacy before posting by blurring faces, tattoos and license plates, removing metadata, and sharing a privacy-edited copy instead of the raw file. Think strate- gically about distribution because some- times it’s safer to provide footage to journalists, lawyers or civil rights groups who can authenticate it without exposing everyone to mass identification. And re- member the “second audience” beyond police, including employers, trolls and data brokers. A New Reality Recording law enforcement in public is of- ten a vital democratic check, especially when official narratives and reality con- flict, as they have in Minneapolis since Jan. 7, 2026. But the camera in your pocket is also part of a maturing surveillance ecosystem, one that links video, facial recognition and loca- tion data in ways most people never con- sented to and often don’t fully recognize. In 2026, filming still matters. The chal- lenge is to ensure that witnessing doesn’t quietly become a new form of exposure. This article is republished from The Con- versation under a Creative Commons license. ▼ ECONOMY $30K MILLIONAIRES NOT INCLUDED DALLAS CONTINUES TO ROCKET UP THE LIST OF RICHEST CITIES ON EARTH. BY KELLY DEARMORE T he U.S. economy has seen better days, but many thousands of Dallasites might not know that. A new report shows that Big D is packed with more mil- lionaires and billionaires than ever before. Each year, global investment consulting firm Henley & Partners publishes rankings of the world’s richest cities and the cities with the most millionaires, centi-million- aires and billionaires. Unsurprisingly, Dallas is typically a big player on the high-dollar list. In fact, Dallas is a bigger player than usual this time around. Overall, Dallas ranks 21st in the world for the number of millionaires, with Henley & Partners reporting an astounding 72,400 re- siding in Big D. But that’s not the only lofty spot Dallas grabbed in the study. When considering the number of millionaires from 2014 - 2024, the study lists Dallas as the seventh- fastest-growing wealth hub in the U.S. and 12th-fastest in the world, with an 85% growth rate. Of course, Dallas is home to more than just millionaires. The study shows that 16 billionaires and 135 centi-millionaires (peo- ple worth at least $100,000,000) live amongst us. All of these numbers represent an increase from the previous Henley & Partners wealth study. It’s not just Dallas showing the world the money from the Lone Star State. Hous- ton and Austin also feature prominently in the survey. A lack of state income tax and a steady flow of corporate headquarters relo- cations to Texas, specifically North Texas, certainly help keep Dallas flush with deep pockets. Corporate titans with high-dollar execs like Charles Schwab and Yum! Brands are just two of the high-profile cor- porate relocations from out of state to North Texas in recent years, and that’s barely scratching the surface. Let’s not forget that luxury is often more affordable in Dallas than it is in San Fran- cisco or New York, too. If you think real es- tate prices in North Texas have gotten out of control, just remember that the cost of living is about 60% higher in San Francisco than it is in Dallas, while you can only get about half the house there for the same price as you can here. Some reports suggest Dallas has even more millionaires than the latest Henley & Partners study says. Want to meet one of them? We have a few suggestions for where to go at www.dallasobserver.com. Emma Ruby Many Dallas protesters held signs in honor of Renee Good during an ICE protest.
