Content affirms dignity and equality; frames surveillance as constraint on democratic participation and public input. Headline explicitly raises democratic access deficit ('public has little input'). Title framing advocates for transparency principle.

Indirect: story concerns equal treatment and non-discrimination. License plate reader deployment raises questions about differential surveillance impact on communities. Frame presupposes equal democratic voice.

Core theme: public 'has little input' on surveillance policy. Advocates for equal participation rights and non-discrimination in policy-making. Structural accessibility (language clarity, attribution) supports inclusive information access.

Tangential: story documents freedom of assembly and association constraints implicit in surveillance infrastructure. No direct coverage of this right; inferred from surveillance context.

Indirect: surveillance infrastructure can enable arbitrary detention/slavery concerns; not explicit. Story frames surveillance as governance issue, not freedom constraint. Regress toward zero.

License plate reader infrastructure raises torture/cruel treatment concerns indirectly (surveillance as coercive infrastructure). Story does not explicitly address this. Moderate signal through governance accountability frame.

Surveillance without legal oversight raises arbitrary deprivation concerns. Story frames agreement as 'quiet' and outside public input—implies governance deficit. No explicit personhood claim.

Central theme: equal protection before law. Article emphasizes public exclusion from policy ('quiet agreement'), imbalance of power, and private foundation funding structure that bypasses public scrutiny. Structural clarity supports legal access to information.

Directly relevant: story advocates for remedies against surveillance violations. Frames Flock agreement as potential rights breach. Mentions public has 'little input' on remedy design. Advocates for transparency as remedial access.

Arbitrary arrest risk implicit in surveillance infrastructure without oversight. Story does not explicitly address arrest practices. Inferred signal only.

Fair trial concerns: surveillance data without oversight may compromise due process. Not explicit in article. Story frames governance issue, not trial fairness directly.

Presumption of innocence: surveillance infrastructure raises privacy intrusions that may presume guilt. Inferred concern. Article does not explicitly address presumption framework.

Privacy is core subject. Story describes license plate reader data collection and surveillance infrastructure; advocates for public input on privacy policy. Structural: site itself uses tracking tags (Facebook ID, Twitter cards), creating transparency gap. Net score reflects contradiction.

Movement/residence constraints implicit in surveillance infrastructure. Story frames surveillance as limiting democratic movement/participation. Indirect signal through governance accountability.

Asylum/protection of persons: no direct relevance. Story is domestic police surveillance policy. Regress toward zero.

Nationality: no direct relevance to license plate reader story. Regress toward zero.

Family/marriage: surveillance infrastructure can impact family privacy. Story frames surveillance without oversight as governance issue. Indirect signal. Moderate evidence.

Property rights: private foundation funding model raises questions about who controls/owns surveillance data and infrastructure. Story frames this as public accountability issue. Advocates for transparency in property/data control.

Thought/conscience/religion: surveillance infrastructure constrains freedom of conscience through chilling effects on association and movement. Story frames surveillance as limiting democratic conscience. Advocates for accountability.

Central focus: article IS an act of free expression exposing surveillance policy. Headline and framing advocate for public input ('public has little input'). Structural clarity, byline attribution, metadata optimization all support freedom of expression. Domain editorial code and open access model reinforce.

Peaceful assembly: story documents surveillance infrastructure that can chill assembly rights. Advocates for public input/assembly in policy-making ('public has little input'). Frames surveillance as constraint on collective action.

Political participation: core theme. Story advocates for public participation in surveillance policy. Title explicitly states 'public has little input.' Frames surveillance as democratic deficit. Structural: article itself is democratic participation mechanism through journalism.

Social security/welfare: surveillance infrastructure may impact access to public services. Story frames surveillance as governance accountability issue. Inferred signal through equity concerns.

Labor/work: surveillance infrastructure can constrain labor rights and freedom. Story frames surveillance as accountability issue affecting public. Advocates for democratic control of surveillance affecting workers/public.

Rest/leisure: surveillance infrastructure can chill leisure activities and movement. Indirect signal. Story frames governance issue, not directly addressing rest rights.

Standard of living: surveillance infrastructure funded through private foundation raises equity questions. Story frames this as public accountability issue. Moderate signal through governance transparency.

Education/human development: article itself is educational; exposes surveillance policy. Advocates for informed public participation through journalism. Structural clarity supports learning/understanding.

Cultural participation: surveillance infrastructure can constrain cultural expression and association. Story advocates for public participation in governance. Frames surveillance as limiting collective cultural/political life.

Social/international order: story advocates for accountable social order through transparency. Frames surveillance agreement as bypassing legal/social order. Advocates for public input in establishing rules.

Community responsibilities: story frames surveillance as community governance issue. Advocates for public participation in deciding surveillance policy. Emphasizes duty to inform/include public.

Preventing abuse: core advocacy frame. Story documents surveillance infrastructure without public oversight; advocates for transparency/accountability to prevent abuse. Framing centers on governance deficit enabling abuse.