Slashdot Mirror

Come on dude, even the police recognize they have a racism problem.
http://www.policechiefmagazine...

The law is enforced unequally on whites and non whites.

For example, When a mixed race group of girls were picked up by police...

"officers took the white teen to the lobby to call her parents but brought three of the black teens to the back of the station, where they were locked up and searched. When one of the girls asked why they were being brought in the back doors, one of the officers replied, "trash in and trash out," according to court records."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Don't let the "ferguson" fool you- this happened in yet another town, not ferguson.

will the government support me putting a 17-year old idiot behind bars for killing a loved one of mine with distracted driving?

Forget the teens...I see soccer moms and jerks every day all day with their heads in their laps cluelessly driving down the freeway. The look of indignation when I honk and "wave" are priceless. It's that "I'm a responsible driver. I know how to text and drive safely. How dare you!" look. This should be a night in jail mandatory sentence for depraved indifference IMO. A couple of those and it might start to change. But with cops being just as big offenders that's not likely to happen.

A tip usually isn't enough for a search warrant. ...which would require an arrest warrant, with an even higher burden of proof, and a prosecutor that thinks they can make a case on more than just a few pictures of you not even taken in your house. That's not very Scottish, either.

Except cops and prosecutors do worse than that, with less evidence to start with, on a regular basis. With "tips" based on information the cops either made up or acquired illegally, and the judge signs off on the warrant using the "confidential informant" excuse.

Forbids government monitoring of every person in the area without warrant.

First, the idea that a camera pointed at a border is somehow forbidden -- wouldn't want to monitor every person in an area without a warrant, now would we -- is silly. Someone call DOT and have them take down the freeway cams.

That said, we already employ vibration, and magnetic remote sensors, as well as cameras in both visible and infrared, plus software that helps determine if an event is human, animal or other in watching our borders (Canada and Mexico). It seems like a Kinect-based system would do even better. It'd stop CBP officers from responding to wolves tripping sensors.

http://www.policechiefmagazine...

Try asking anyone under 30 if they know what the phrase "Papers Please!" denotes

It's just two words... It's a lot of things.

It's when the Military place soldiers in a natural disaster area such as New Orleans after Katrina requiring you to show military ID or proof of government authorization, to avoid arrest, or having vehicles impounded

It's an attack onAmerican birthright citizenship

It's two words that succinctly describe America's dark future.

Personal and Professional Encounters with Surveillance

anti-state.com: May I See Your Papers Please?

It's what Mr. Hiibel of Nevada went to jail for refusing to comply with

It's what police do now to ordinary people minding their own business.

It's congress work on the REAL ID act

It's a name given to a section of an Arizona law upheld by the Supreme court.

It's the name of a complaint against changes the US is making starting this Fall 2013 to further restrict the free travel of Americans and greatly increase the difficulty of US citizens getting passports

It's the name of a dystopian video game about communist immigration control.

It's the name of an anti-TSA blog

It's a request you comply with when asked by the police; otherwise, you face immediate arrest.

• Texas 77 year old Grandmother arrested after refusing to show ID
• Police arrest for refusing to show ID while on private property
• Exhibit 1
• Exhibit 2: According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify
• Arrested at Circuit City for refusing to show ID: "It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license."
• I follow the blog of a guy who walked across the country (California to New York) last year. He was arrested in Greencastle, Indiana last summer, after a prison worker called the police to report him as a suspicious person after they exchanged words while he was walking past the prison complex.
• Florida Cops Tase man for refusing to show ID
• Refusal to show id in Georgia (arrest)
• Man in Arizona arrested for refusing to surrender firearm to officers who refused to show their own ID

1. What's wrong with cops in general? You think the average cop is too bottom of the barrel to be a cop? 2) Bad cops are bad because of their authority and their above the law status.

Yes. People have been disqualified from police forces for having too high of an IQ. And back in *1967*, the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice recommended that a four-year degree be mandatory for cops, and in 1973 the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals made the same recommendation. Study after study has found that cops with more education do a better job -- i.e., it's not just "because of their authority and their above the law status", it's because of the men and women we put into those jobs. Yet very few departments have put such an educational requirement in place.

Two Nevada statutes were involved in this case. The first, the stop-and-identify statute, Nevada Revised Statutes 171.123, authorizes a police officer to detain any person the officer has reasonable suspicion has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The statute provides that a person who is detained must identify himself but is not required to answer any other questions asked by the officer. The statute has been interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that the person state his or her name to the officer, either verbally or by some other means; there is no requirement that the person provide any document to the officer.

I know an IT guy in a small city police department. Trust me on this police don't want to share data with anyone and what data the police collects you can pay $10 for copy of the report. Why don't police want to share data? Because they collect "intel" data and some of the people in there may have done nothing wrong. Take gangs. If a gang member is arrested, they like to try to link together gang members. Well, just because you are a gang member or linked to a gang member doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong. I've been amazed at how little the police can legally share with each other. There are both state and federal laws limiting the "intel" information. I think the rule of thumb is that you can generally share your data among your department, but you generally can't share intel information farther than that. If you wand some potentially scary stuff, look up N-DEx
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm? fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=908&issue_id=62 006 . NIBRS is about all the feds care about and it's all just crime stats.

There is a policeman that I work with. I tell him routinely, that I think that the feds should be the final resting place for every report that they write and everything should be stored by them. In car dash cameras should be attached to police reports and submitted up to the Feds and stored both to cover the individual policeman's butt, and incase anyone else in the nation wanted to compare video. I'd want that one automated though. Heck, there isn't even a "national" standard for finger prints. Each state has its own system and doesn't look outside of its system.

It's amazing how well the police do their jobs with the tools that they have.

The end total of the IT that I'd like to give to my cops would be a virtual police state. I really drooled over the traffic cameras that London could afford. We'd never be able to spend like that though. Heck, there was an article on /. a few days ago about a camera searching every passing car and doing NCIC lookups to see if there were any hits. I think that every city should have one of those systems for each of their major transportation hubs. Humans can't catch much, but with a system like that, if an auto is in the system as stolen, then a police person can atleast be alerted and stop the car that he would have otherwise missed.

That device was something like $25-$30K. For my department to afford it, we'd need a grant to cover it. We could purchase something around $4-$5K, but not something for $25-30K. There are alot of neat police tools that I'd like our department to have access to, but each one is priced around $25-30K and we don't have that much to spend.

We looked last year and replacing our analog cameras and VCRs to the digital cameras with lowlight and storing them on 4 GB flash cards and wirelessly transmit. We were going to setup 5 cars with plans of upgrading our entire fleet of 25 units, but it was going to cost about $65K for the inital 5 cars and setting up the backbone system. The night vision on that system was sweet. I wish our department had it. One other nice feature was that it was always recording/buffering and whenever the officer did one of several things it would automatically start recording/saving a segment. It did GPS and showed the officer's mph.

We don't have AVL in our fleet, but we've discusseed it, but it keeps falling through. It all comes down to money.

Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).

What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.

I'm the IT guy in a small city police department. Trust me on this police don't want to share data with anyone and what data the police collects you can pay $10 for copy of the report. Why don't police want to share data? Because they collect "intel" data and some of the people in there may have done nothing wrong. Take gangs. If a gang member is arrested, they like to try to link together gang members. Well, just because you are a gang member or linked to a gang member doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong. I've been amazed at how little the police can legally share with each other. There are both state and federal laws limiting the "intel" information. I think the rule of thumb is that you can generally share your data among your department, but you generally can't share intel information farther than that. If you wand some potentially scary stuff, look up N-DEx
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm? fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=908&issue_id=62 006 . NIBRS is about all the feds care about and it's all just crime stats.

There is a policeman that I work with. I tell him routinely, that I think that the feds should be the final resting place for every report that they write and everything should be stored by them. In car dash cameras should be attached to police reports and submitted up to the Feds and stored both to cover the individual policeman's butt, and incase anyone else in the nation wanted to compare video. I'd want that one automated though. Heck, there isn't even a "national" standard for finger prints. Each state has its own system and doesn't look outside of its system.

It's amazing how well the police do their jobs with the tools that they have.

The end total of the IT that I'd like to give to my cops would be a virtual police state. I really drooled over the traffic cameras that London could afford. We'd never be able to spend like that though. Heck, there was an article on /. a few days ago about a camera searching every passing car and doing NCIC lookups to see if there were any hits. I think that every city should have one of those systems for each of their major transportation hubs. Humans can't catch much, but with a system like that, if an auto is in the system as stolen, then a police person can atleast be alerted and stop the car that he would have otherwise missed.

That device was something like $25-$30K. For my department to afford it, we'd need a grant to cover it. We could purchase something around $4-$5K, but not something for $25-30K. There are alot of neat police tools that I'd like our department to have access to, but each one is priced around $25-30K and we don't have that much to spend.

We looked last year and replacing our analog cameras and VCRs to the digital cameras with lowlight and storing them on 4 GB flash cards and wirelessly transmit. We were going to setup 5 cars with plans of upgrading our entire fleet of 25 units, but it was going to cost about $65K for the inital 5 cars and setting up the backbone system. The night vision on that system was sweet. I wish our department had it. One other nice feature was that it was always rec