Slashdot Mirror


Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department

logicassasin sends in a story about a blogger in Phoenix, AZ, who runs a site that is critical of the local police department. The police recently raided his home and seized his computer hardware. "Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging. The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment — which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation." A local publication quotes Pataky saying, "We have heard internally from our police sources that they purposefully did this to stop me... They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem."

95 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. Cable modem... by unts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    Which is exactly why I've stuck a flash drive in mine that I can run a USB cable to when I want to do some "backups to my modem".
     
    Wink wink.

    1. Re:Cable modem... by bigman2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      More interestingly, is the use of the phrase; "Anyone worth their salt."

      This is a very old phrase, originally used when salt was a very, very expensive commodity. Roman soldiers were typically paid for their duties in salt. So a good soldier was 'worth their salt.' (Obligatory Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary )

      So back to the topic on hand. I don't think this phrase is appropriate here, because we are taking geek assumptions (knowing that a router/modem do not store data long-term (other than configuration data, and potentially a log file)) and comparing it to a soldier who is worth his pay.

      These are cops, we should use a different phrase like:

      "Not showing up for work on the day of the idiotic raid; Chief Wiggims saved his own bacon through incompetence."

      --
      No reason to lie.
    2. Re:Cable modem... by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need a new mod choice: (-1 Overly Pedantic).

    3. Re:Cable modem... by KeX3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to counter that with (-1 Fact Nazi), and rate you (-1 Overly Eloquent).

    4. Re:Cable modem... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

      (+1 Now that's just plain silly)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    5. Re:Cable modem... by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

      Hate to post this under a joke, but wouldn't the police have to seize your cable modem in any case involving Internet activity? The only evidence they'll have prior to getting a warrant to search your property is a bunch of logs from the cable company. Those logs won't point to an address, they'll point to a MAC address (or whatever cable modems use). The cable company's records will say that MAC address belongs to a modem at such and such address, but to prove it they'll need the cable modem physically used at that address. Otherwise the resident could destroy the modem or switch his with a neighbor's and claim it wasn't his modem that was the source of that activity.

    6. Re:Cable modem... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Face it, the guys collecting "evidence" probably don't know what a cable modem is, they just grabbed anything that looks computerish. And if they did know, they'd probably take it anyway just to make it harder for him to get back online and post about their activities. My first impression of this is that those cops are dicks, but it'll be up to the courts to make that official.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  2. Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This guy's obviously already been in court. ACLU time, and even up to the supreme court. The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal raping.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it seems that if you want to blog and say anything remotely negative about the Phoenix police department, you better move out of Phoenix first.

      This is tyrannical, a clear abuse of power. Everyone aware and responsible for this farce and the reason for the seizure needs to be jailed.

      Apparently the standards and scrutiny imposed to ensure "probable cause" for a search before a warrant can be issued (or before a search can be done) aren't high enough.

    2. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I moved out of Phoenix 12 years ago, but I never actually had problems with them aside from 1 traffic ticket the whole time I was there. I did have to call them to, my truck was broken into, I was actually surprised they finger printed when they were obviously dealing with a junky stealing stereo's for a fix.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    3. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, the whole fucking county is crooked and they are bad at their jobs. I would not step foot into that county if you paid me a 1000 bucks, well also because that is where all my ex-gf live.

    4. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's surprising that the police didn't realise that this would almost certainly look very bad for them, especially if there is already a lawsuit and the took files specifically pertaining to it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Begging the question, IMO. "See, he's acting innocent. Only the most hardened of criminals act innocent when confronted with their guilt, so he MUST be guilty of something!"

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, this is the Streisand effect on steroids. The dirty cops and the people who would otherwise be embarrassed are obviously trying to find the leaky cops. But the more of a ruckus they stir up, the more people who are going to notice.

      This is what brought U.S. Federal attention to Dallas.

      An interesting thing though. Village Voice Media (formerly New Times before they bought VVM and took their name) is HQ'd in Phoenix... They own papers in several major markets which includes Dallas. I haven't checked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to find a story or two surrounding any police corruption in Phoenix in the New Times publication in Phoenix.

    7. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      Because I know when I'm doing something very illegal, I'm going to draw as much attention to myself from the authorities as possible...

      I think your scenario is kind of unlikely.

      If the Phoenix police don't have a very good reason for this raid, the blogger probably won't need a job ever again after he sues the pants off them.

    8. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they paid you $1,000, they'd stop you there and seize the money for being "probable drug-related"

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    9. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Only on slashdot with a bunch of paranoid 12 year olds would the first reaction to be that he was completely innocent and the cops were wrong.

      Actually, no, or at least, I hope not. In case you haven't noticed, this took place in the USA, where people are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm beginning to think the world is one big Milgram experiment...

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    11. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, no, or at least, I hope not. In case you haven't noticed, this took place in the USA, where people are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      Did you just wake up from a 20 year sleep?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by redelm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe, mabe not. This guy appearently was accused of spousal abuse, not prosecuted, then decided to turn the tables. Who knows?

      But there's a _very_ easy remedy: his lawyer asks for summary judgement or a directed verdict in his suit against the cops. His case has been compromised, aned those are reasonable remedies.

      Judges do not like to grant summary, so s/he might review the probable cause the warrent-granting judge signed off on. I expect some pointed questions under oath of the requesting officers. Unless they have pretty cast-iron probable cause of a serious felony, the cops are _hosed_.

      Not only will they have to pay whatever the suit claimed, but the Phoenix PD will suffer a serious loss of credibility with both judges, and probably all in the district. They'll find it harder to get warrents. Something they have to do every day. I expect some serious grovelling and a punative internal investigation to restore credibility.

      Or maybe nothing, depending on the personalities involved.

    13. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My, you live in a nice cosy little world. Welcome to the real world, where the race is run and the good guys lost. Policemen are not nice guys, and neither are judges. Evidence, schmevidence, police departments are usually adept enough at covering their asses.

      All the blogger can really do if he needs his data is to make damn sure he has an off-site backup somewhere the authorities can't get at it.

    14. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People need to wake up to the realities of this shit. Modern day police departments are filled with tyrannical people who enact tyrannical policy purely for the sake of their own egos. (Not all of them, but enough bad apples to ruin the bunch in a lot of cases.) The modern day police department is a THREAT to security and liberty in this country, not a protector of it, and in all honesty people need to start fighting back against it. Unfortunately, the police are also the ones with all the guns and tear gas and media connections who will label protestors, detractors, and other enemies of tyranny as "terrorists" or "criminals." And they have their egos in a bunch over their presumed notion that everything they do is "in the right," and anything anyone says or does against them is automatically "in the wrong," largely because we've let them think that way for entirely too long.

    15. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by pedrop357 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Atlanta police "picked on" Kathryn Johnston and I never read anywhere that she did anything wrong or had any prior contact with them.

      It doesn't matter what you did, what you were accused of, or how many times you've been to court in the past. The police are not allowed to harass, assault, "pick on", or take any unlawful action against you.

      Your post is very similar to the posts I would expect from people who say things like "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" or "I don't get harassed by the police because I follow the law", etc. A lot of times, I find that they suggest or imply that it's OK for the police to violate someone's rights if they've "done something to deserve it"; this isn't true. Just because a person gets an attitude at a traffic stop, or was accused years ago of crimes and cried holy hell against the police department and city, does not mean 'the gloves come off' and the police can do what they want. That would allow them to come down on anyone, anytime as long as they can manufacture some flimsy justification.

      The police have rules to follow regardless of whether you the other person does or not and they are obligated to follow the law to the same degree they expect us to follow it. You can't really be enforcing the law if you break it.

      This guy is also doing the same thing some people do when they've been dealing with abusive government officials for so long, telling anyone who will hear.

    16. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.

      They may not always protect your personal liberty with every single action, but they do protect society, which ultimately protects your liberty in real terms.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if some stranger keeps breaking into your house and stealing stuff.

      The very existence of police is a deterrant for burglars, rapists, muggers, killers, and fraudsters. I.E. The "REAL" criminals who will readily conduct the most damaging activities to society, if not prevented.

      And certainly despite the cases of abuse, the police do sometimes manage to actually investigate some crimes, bring the perpetrator to justice, and (where possible, i.e. cases of theft, where the stolen item is found) help make the victim whole again.

      Police are absolutely essential in a civilized society, due to the existence of certain criminal behavior.

      As are military.

      The problem occurs when they are allowed to be too aggressive -- for example, police disrupting the lives of ordinary citizens to investigate crimes that are less destructive than that of the investigation effort itself.

      The problem is either too many things are criminal, or the police has too much search and seizure power for possible offenses that wouldn't seem to warrant it, or a combination of both.

      Problem is it's TOO easy for the police to just get a search warrant to go on a fishing expedition.

      They love to seize computer equipment, because they have a pretention that they are just seizing one item -- but in fact, they're seizing ALL their files (it's like seizing a shelf full of books and all your records of all natures)

      It is a bit absurd that they are allowed to do this without proving good reason.

      Instead they should have to name what kind of files they would be seizing, and execute their seizure by plugging equipment in, and extracting a copy of the data ON SITE.

      With an obligation to destroy their copy of any materials not related to the investigation. And hold ALL materials as confidential, until/unless trial, and the materials to be disclosed are valid evidence.

    17. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, the whole fucking country is crooked

      FTFY

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by grahamd0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if some stranger keeps breaking into your house and stealing stuff.

      Like the Phoenix police dept?

    19. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ushering05401 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who was under L.A. Rampart jurisdiction for a while let me hip you to a little something, pecosdave.

      There was one person who left prints in your car that would require almost no trouble for the police to track down and prosecute for a crime.. YOU.

      A crime scene is a crime scene, you run all the prints - and no, they are not going to be paying lab fees to get an additional minor charge tacked onto a junkie stereo thief's sentence when they finally track him/her down for some unrelated crime.

      This is a tactic pretty much specific to places that have gang/drug trafficking issues - and even 12 years ago the Phoenix street was heavy in that regard.

    20. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had a restraining order AGAINST one of my gf, she was an army brat and menaced me with a M14 once. That was enough of that.

    21. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm, if he's already been to court, doesn't it stand the chance that maybe he's doing something wrong and deserves what he's getting?

      Yes, he was in court before. Because he filed a lawsuit against them.

      Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.

      Except it wasn't random and he didn't make himself a target. He went through a bad divorce and his ex filed a lot of complaints against him. According to TFA some of the complaints happened when he was out of town.

      Perhaps, just maybe, the slashdot assumption that a blogger did no wrong, is infact, wrong.

      People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

      This guy is doing exactly what any liar does, just like a politician does. Screams as loudly as possible to anyone who will listen that he has been wronged and trying to drag in a bunch of support from people who don't know what actually happened because all they've heard is his one sided bullshit story that paints him to be a saint.

      The innocent should do the same thing, scream as loud as they could when wronged.

      Falcon

    22. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by interval1066 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      @ushering05401: "Blah blah blah blah..."

      Huh? What the hell does that statement have to do with anything important???? If the facts presented here on /. are correct, this move by the Phoenix PD is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why aren't you in as much shock as I am?

      Clearly, the nation is slowly moving towards a state fear-based govmt. It should be the opposite. WHY ISN'T ANYONE ALARMED AT THIS CRAP?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    23. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone deserve to be menaced by a gun?

    24. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I already explained why I am not in shock - I dealt with Rampart for years, and my parents and grandparents all dealt with their own variations on the theme.

      Abusive police departments are not only not new, they are as old as history.. which is why there are judges and all the other checks/balances in modern society.

      The truth is, though, that the type of abuse that is currently causing you to PANIC and type in all caps has been the default experience for impoverished people in this country for generations.

      Somehow we keep going... I'm gonna go listen to some Dust Bowl Ballads, excuse me.

    25. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by spazdor · · Score: 2, Funny

      "computer tampering with the intent to harass" sounds pretty close to what the blogger's accusing the police of.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    26. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never mind the county corruption, the Phoenix DA employes a psychic, and allows her dreams to influence his investigations. Not only that, he's expecting to get re-elected even though this has been made abundantly public.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    27. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does anyone deserve to be menaced by a gun?

      Yes, there are plenty of reasons that would cause me to "menace" you with a gun...

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    28. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming the guy didn't deserve it. You don't know why they did it. All you know is that this guy claims they are singling him out.

      True, we don't know anything with certainty. However, it sure is mighty suspicious when authority raids the home of someone critical of said authority.

      Why the fuck do you idiots assume he is telling the truth? Innocent until proven guilt, no argument there, but no where does that statement say that you BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY until proven guilty.

      It is incoherent to simultaneously assume someone not guilty and not believe them when they say they are, in fact, not guilty.

      I hate to tell you this but most of the time when you get attacked on this level, its because you did something wrong in the first place.

      Do you have some statistics to back that claim?

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      Why would a child porn ring need a "front"? What could the blog possibly offer their operations? And if this hypothetical criminal organization needed a front, why choose one that was bound to attract police attention?

      If you're going to go making wild accusations with no basis whatsoever, at least make them somewhat plausible.

      Only on slashdot with a bunch of paranoid 12 year olds would the first reaction to be that he was completely innocent and the cops were wrong.

      So why read this forum? Go back to 4chan and learn to troll properly. Or did they ban you from there already? Or just laugh you out?

      Another hint, if you start poking a sleeping bear with a stick, the bear eventually will wake up and eat your ass for breakfast. I suspect his blogging resulted in roughly the same result.

      Here in Finland we shoot man-eating beasts as threats to public safety rather than give them a badge and a gun. But I guess that in Capitalist America, the beast shoots you !-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.

      Hacking is, contrary to myth, not that hard to avoid, no matter the resources. If push comes to shove, you could run the server yourself (as I do, though I don't blog).

      To elaborate: Hacking is not like forced physical entry. It is entirely possible to perfectly lock out hacking your computer remotely. In contrast, you can only delay a determined person gaining entry, unless you are willing and able to use force directly against said person: No mere lock or wall will keep out a determined person.

      Sort of like death really. TREMBLE BRIEF MORTAL! FOR I AM DEATH WHOM NO LOCK CAN HOLD NOR FASTENED PORTAL BAR! (yeah, yeah, shamely Pratchett quote there)

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    30. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Jerry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was once told, point blank, by a captain of the New Castle police department that, quote "his job was not to protect me from criminals, his job was to arrest me for not toeing the line."

      He probably told you that because he is a psychopath with a badge and a gun.

      But, according the the Supreme Court, he is correct.

      The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976377/posts:
      "Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

      "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

      Sources:

      7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
      On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

      (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

      (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

      (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

      (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

      (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

      (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
      "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

      (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
      Riss"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your f

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    31. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by dereference · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did have to call them to, my truck was broken into, I was actually surprised they finger printed when they were obviously dealing with a junky stealing stereo's for a fix.

      If I were a cynical type, I'd suggest that perhaps they were just taking that as an opportunity to collect your fingerprints.

    32. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like any other sort of job, there will be different cultures in different offices. To say that all police departments are equally corrupt is either incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest.

      Any profession that deals with controlling people will have it's problems, but seeing corruption as a boolean is simply a childish view of the world.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    33. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's marked funny but it just happened because the person, when asked why he had 4 grand in cash responded "Am I required by law to tell you?". It was caught all on tape, amusing and sad at the same time.

  3. No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the Police came for the bloggers,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a blogger.

    Then they locked up the rich,
    I remained silent;
    I was not rich.

    Then they came for the gun owners,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a gun owner.

    Then they came for the press,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a member of the press.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out for me.

    --
    "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    1. Re:No one left to speak for me by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing people are talking about this, huh?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then they locked up the rich,

      Fail.

    3. Re:No one left to speak for me by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand your point about jumping to conclusions of innocence, but at the same time, I'll assume he's innocent until he's proven otherwise, thank you very much. Attitudes like that are exactly the reason that there's very little outrage over abuses of power. People are so cynical that they figure the guy MUST have done something bad, or that it's a foregone conclusion that the "bear" will wake up and eat people who irritate them.

      The fact is that irritating the police is not illegal -- and never should be -- and, if that's the extent of his offense, they really need to publicly own up to misconduct. The "bear" is not supposed to be able to eat people who poke them with sticks. We as a society put very strict limitations on the power of authorities -- doubly so on those who weild the power to incarcerate and kill people.

      The articles they confiscated point to it being exactly as described. Now yes, it's possible he's all loaded up with kiddie porn, is evading taxes, and possibly administering a botnet, but I haven't heard anything about any of that.

      The freedom of speech is not the freedom to say "fuck" in public places. It's to limit the government from taking retaliatory actions to your speech. It's the first line of defense against tyranny.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    5. Re:No one left to speak for me by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the Police came for the bloggers,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a blogger.

      Then they locked up the rich,
      I remained silent;

      LOL!

      The police locking up the rich is a very ironic concept, considering that their purpose is to protect the rich.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:No one left to speak for me by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, sir, are an idiot. Or a troll, but really, I'm leaning strongly towards idiot.

      It's just that stupid "don't fuck with people in power" attitude that has plagued this country for years. If everyone had your idiotic attitude, the ghost of Richard Nixon would still be President after everyone completely ignored Watergate, allowed him to toss out the Constitution, and declare himself leader ever after. It's idiots like you who elected George W. (as in, "What do you mean the law applies to me too?") Bush, who then—you guessed it—tossed out the Constitution and conducted a reign of scaremongering with the threat that if you spoke out against him (or just had a Muslim-sounding name, you were a terrorist who could be packed up and shipped to Egypt, Syria, or some other godforsaken part of the world and tortured or killed. Hell, with that attitude, we'd still be a fucking British colony, you moron.

      If the guy did something illegal, then let them prove it. As it is, though, all indications so far that the police are guilty as sin of gross abuse of power, and if so, every damn one of them who were involved in this should be heavily fined, jailed, and never allowed to work for law enforcement again.

      If you RTFA (reported by the Arizona Republic, you idiot, not just "some bloggers"), you'll see that a former homicide detective who is speaking out about crime lab mismanagement was also targeted. Of course, I guess that just falls under the "he should have just shut up and let the police do any damn thing they want" umbrella that is your philosophy on people who have the legal right to kill you.

      I'm not even going to try to explain how law enforcement must necessarily be held to a higher standard of not retaliating when people do things that aren't illegal no matter how much they don't like it. I'm afraid it might explode your tiny little brain that can't comprehend that things like accountability and the right to free speech is a little more complicated than poking a bear with a pointy stick. Maybe we'll get lucky and some policeman who you pissed off will throw you in a cage with a hungry bear just because he can, then maybe you'll realize how stupid and facetious your analogy really is.

    7. Re:No one left to speak for me by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never seen such a breathless defense of fascism on Slashdot as this post.

      You don't actually know what word means, do you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:No one left to speak for me by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Informative

      "He is innocent until proven guilty, but the cops aren't? What kind of bullshit is that?"

      The only bullshit here is your interpretation of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". The cops aren't the ones being charged under the law, and the presumption of innocence applies only to those so charged. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply at all to criticism of public officials, which is apparently all this blogger is guilty of.

      In any case, you are clearly an idiot. If I had mod points I'd have modded you a troll instead of replying.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    9. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about another one?

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance?"

      I'm sorry you don't like that I reference a writing that was about abuse of power and the coming of totalitarianism and the public's silence as it happened. It's important to remind people of the price that will be paid for letting the little things slide. The "little things" add up pretty quickly, and before you know it, you're asking yourself how this could happen in your country.

      You call Americans idiotic and dumb, but the poem written was about the idiocy of Europeans as they stood by and watched the worst happen. Excuse me if I don't want to do the same. Excuse me if I don't hold out hope that Europeans will come to fight for my freedom like Americans came to fight for theirs when they passively watched the rise of madmen.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    10. Re:No one left to speak for me by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you serious? I'm pretty sure they were adults and not 6 year olds saying 'sticks and stones my break my bones'

      You can call me an asshole on slashdot all day long, and you'd probably be right. But when I come take your computer because it was actually stolen from my dad in the first place, doesn't make me a corrupt cop or guilty of being evil, it just means the public isn't aware of the fact that not only are you a name caller, you are a thief and in general a douche bag.

      Instead your just assuming the cops are doing wrong and have no actual idea about what happened. Did you RTFA? He admits he's harassed several city officials in his OMG POLICE ARE EVIL AND RAPED ME! post.

      What would be stupid, and is pretty much whats happened here so far is that I saw you doing something that resembled eating shit, and while my mouth was full of shit I've been eating, I screamed 'OMG HES EATING SHIT THATS WRONG!' and everyone ignores the fact that I have shit dripping from my chin and spewing out while I speak. And then tomorrow we find out that you were eating pudding, not shit. And then you proceed to feel like a douche bag for listening to the stupid blogger in the first place.

      Is this whats going to happen? I have no idea, but neither do you as we have absolutely 0 idea about whats going on in this case, we just have a rant about bad cops who spends his days harassing city officials and blogging about bad cops.

      You'll have to forgive me if I put a little more faith in the police than a douche bag blogger. I've also been around long enough to know these things are very rarely what they seem, thanks to the publics ability to run with sensationalist unverified blog spewings and idiots who blindly believe it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    11. Re:No one left to speak for me by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you don't. I love the English language as much as the next guy, and realize that fascism used to refer to to a specific sociopolitical system. However, I also realize that "fascism" is used in the the vernacular to refer to any over-reaching authoritarian system that uses strong arm tactics to maintain it's power; more specifically one that used these tactics against anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of whether or not their target is guilty of anything other than this disagreeing. These tactics generally include intimidation, harassment, unlawful search and seizure, or even incarceration of the targeted individual or individuals. "Ain't" didn't used to be in the dictionary either, even when everybody knew what it meant. Get over it.

  4. Backfired! by Tryle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when panic'd decisions are made. The police force thinks they can go in and silence the whole thing with a BS warrant and put an end to it, only for the story to be picked up nation wide and now they're drawing way more attention than ever.

    Serves them right. This looks like a clear cut abuse of power by the department and now that the story is national, hopefully some heads will roll.

    1. Re:Backfired! by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real question is, who's the judge who signed the warrant?

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Backfired! by McGruber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real question is, who's the judge who signed the warrant?

      FTA: "Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe (http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/Judges/judicialBio.asp?jdgID=19&jdgUSID=121) signed the search warrant"

    3. Re:Backfired! by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      How do you fire a rubber stamp?

    4. Re:Backfired! by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to TFA, "Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe signed the search warrant." Judge Donahoe 's qualifications are described here. His contact information (including phone and email address) is here.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    5. Re:Backfired! by LackThereof · · Score: 3, Informative

      The warrant the judge signed was for Petty Theft, and "Computer Fraud with the intent to Harass".

      The blogger is suing the City of Phoenix over it, which means the judge and the police will both be examined, if the case goes anywhere.

      The alleged petty theft was for several officer's nameplates, which are actually copies made at a local trophy shop. Etched black lettering on a silver 2x8" plaque, Times New Roman, 48pt for the title, 72pt bold for the name.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    6. Re:Backfired! by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      You forgot the other option: There wasn't any warrant issued. I happened to "see" a raid executed several years ago without a warrant (in Dallas). When we asked to see it, the cop in charge said,"Don't worry, we'll have one by the time we get to the jail." I spent 4 days in a holding cell before being released with all charges dropped against me. My friend wound up in court with a disbelieving judge catching the arresting cops in lies, and who dismissed the whole case after 15 min of police testimony. It still cost my friend several months and thousands of dollars for his lawyer to prepare a defense.

      That absolutely killed ANY trust in the legal system (there is no JUSTICE in it).

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  5. The real question is by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long before people understand the Streisand Effect??

    This just seems like bullying(who started it and why is something else). Do cops not know of internet cafe's? freedom of speech? or are people just willfully ignorant of reality around them. Like the town that tossed out google streetview. If I close my eyes the bad people can't see me cause i can't see them?

    one day I hope humanity grows up? unfortunately I will have been long since dead.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am so glad I do not live in Phoenix anymore. My friend who has HIV was on his way to the doctors when he got pulled over and arrested for a suspicion of a DUI and had to spend 24 hours without his medicine. They laughed at him in his holding cell and said things like, "Cold enough for you faggot?" when he started shivering from lack of his meds. If you are considering raising a family there remember Phoenix is one of the #1 places in the country for shooting underage suspects, often unarmed. Almost no one ever gets prosecuted for police misconduct there. Scary fucking place.

    2. Re:The real question is by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How long before people understand the Streisand Effect??

      Perhaps it is too soon, but a search on Google news suggests that this story is getting little attention in news media.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  6. What the police were really after, by fava · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Harassing a critic is just a bonus, what the police really wanted was the names of the internal informants so that they can be silenced.

    No informants = No credible criticism.

    1. Re:What the police were really after, by GuldKalle · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is, when they see your collection of tinfoil hats, they'll split every molecule of your house in search of what you're hiding

      --
      What?
  7. We need to start passing laws... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to explicitly layout stronger civil and criminal penalties for abuse of office in the US.

        Use of the office to start an unjustified war, death and 50 million dollars or 50% of your wealth whichever is greater.

        Use of the office to murder, death and 50% of assets.

        Use of the office to take bribes, death and repayment of any contracts lost by competing companies.

        Use of the office to facilitate violence or cause violence against a person, 25 years to life.

        Use of the office to intimidate, threaten or harass, 15 years.

        Use of the office to deny someone their constitutional rights, 5 years.

        Anyone want to help get this on the ballot in 50 states while we still have the populist fervor going?

        Public servants need to be held to a higher standard because of the amount of power they have been given. If we continue allowing politicians and police to be above the law than we have lost our way as a people. We need to remake the laws so that this sort of thing carries penalties that these police officers and district attorneys will be forced to reckon with when they demonstrably are routinely operating as criminals with badges and warrants.

    1. Re:We need to start passing laws... by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm already starting to forget what life in America is supposed to be like. Please help me by indicating which of the following is appropriate:

      A) Arrest the publisher, take all his property, and dump the body in the ocean.

      or

      B) File a libel suit and if it is determined that libel exists, receive compensation for damages.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:We need to start passing laws... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      Two things can be done, start your own blog and sue the person in civil court.

      Every fucking criminal on the planet says 'I'm innocent and this is police harrasment!!'

      Innocents who are harassed say the same thing.

      Falcon

    3. Re:We need to start passing laws... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      Well, the standard we hold schoolkids to is to either ignore the taunter or taunt him back. Do you think the police might be able to reach such level of maturity? Or are you seriously suggesting that "he called me names" is an acceptable reason to raid someone's house?

      Seriously, grow a thicker skin. You're starting to sound like the muslims during that whole Mohammed cartoon thing.

      Before you start talking about how we should attack politicians and cops, lets find out if they actually did anything wrong first instead of jumping to knee jerk reactions based on some emotional connection to a technological fad.

      Certainly. Perhaps you should consider extending this courtesy to the blogger?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by ternarybit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Orwell got everything right except the year. The Thought Police are now a reality, at least in Phoenix.

    1. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To quote another slashdotter's sig:

      Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

    2. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny
  9. We should be glad... by fjo3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that law enforcement agencies are still foolish enough to harass people in such a public and blatant way. Over time they will gain more technical expertise and find other, more difficult to detect, methods of harassing citizens who dare to criticize them. I fear the day when the police get a little bit smarter about disguising their abuses of power. Until then it will continue to be relatively easy to bring the enforcers of law to justice.

  10. More by amclay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's only going to bite us once the police report what he may have been actually doing, or what was not published. Where I find it horrible that they would do it for no reason, I also find it unlikely that they would go to such efforts, when it is obvious that it was retaliatory. My guess is there's more than they reported or know.

    --
    It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
    1. Re:More by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Possibly. But the chilling effect on possible informants is real. And having people with guns show up at your house and root through your possessions is always disturbing. There's also the opportunity to plant evidence, or to find evidence of an unrelated and real offense, however minor, to continue to bother our blogger with.

  11. Fortunately... by Atari400 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't live in a police sta%%%CARRIER DISCONNECT%%%

    --
    IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    1. Re:Fortunately... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't live in a police sta%%%CARRIER DISCONNECT%%%

      Well duh, none of us lives in a police station. Sheesh...

  12. grain of salt by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First, as shown the power of the government is out of control. Homeland security and the like began this trend, and people were happy with it which certain parties were in power because it was used to harass certain other parties they did not like. However, in America giving too much power to the government is dangerous because control shifts and such expansions of power can come back and bite you in the ass. Given that the second hit on google news for this story on a site that advertises the item "The Obama Deception" and has many survivalist stuff, one might assume that the slant in the story is derived from one being hoisted on one's own petard. To be fair though, it seems like the site does speak out against government excesses in general, but it did have a Nazi ad at one reload.

    Second, this appears to be a simple domestic dispute. Guy gets a divorce and wife starts accusing him of what he says are false claims. Judge, probably just seeing that this couple can't stand each other, and probably does not want to waste time sorting out the truth, just drops the charges. Who knows who is telling the truth in such cases. I know people who have been accused of cutting other peoples phones off to harass them. I know for a fact that they didn't do it how can you prove it one way or another?

    So what does this guy do. Start collecting 'tips' from persons inside the department and posting these accusations online. OK, that makes sense, you get slandered by unsubstantiated charges, so you go out and do the same? This is a good way to make friends with the police. Tell the world that one of them is a child molester, even though it may or may not be true. I telling you this is what I live for. Trying to do my job by helping two people that are too immature and uncivilized to get along with each other, I mean the police are required to investigate any reasonable charge, and then what do I get. My face plastered on the internet as a child molester. Oh yeah, that brightens my day.

    Predictably this guy goes too far and gets himself in trouble and the police uses the excuse to take out a problem. Again, overkill, but so is calling a soon-to-be cop a child molester on the internet is not the way to go, especially when all the documentation is apparently yet to be delivered.

    Arizona seems to have it's share of messed up policing, but there must be a better way to go about this than ranting on the internet with unsubstantiated claims.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  13. Eugene, Oregon too... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gr4RsI2V6Y

    Check out the video. Some college kids from the UofO are out in the "Ken Kezzie Free Speech" plaza in Eugene protesting the spraying of pesticides and get harassed by the cops and the taserd.

    I mean look at the kids out there, 18 or 19, doing one of the great things about this country and that is letting you're thoughts be voiced.

    This is crazy!

    1. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The kid in that movie threatened to spray pesticide in the face of the police officer. It's on a completely different level from what happened in TFA. Threatening police is a bad idea, even if you're just joking.

      --
      Qxe4
  14. Cable modem... by deAtog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    Something tells me he hasn't heard of the mysterious black smoke.

  15. Re:Critical of officials? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 3, Funny

    Phoenix? Minneapolis? It looks like its really all the same.

    Greek names?

  16. backups by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    âoeThey broke into my safe and took the backups of my backups,â he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Wednesday.

    Let us use this as an instructive moment: Always keep important backups at a seperate physical location.
    Especially if we are dealing with information that important, powerful, or underhanded people may want destroyed.

    --
    Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
    Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
  17. Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by EWAdams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers. No crime there, although what he said may have been libelous. But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen to present his evidence to whatever the local equivalent of the Internal Affairs Department is. If he was withholding that evidence, he was obstructing justice.

    Bloggers aren't journalists. They don't have to live up to any standards of ethical journalism, and so they don't get protection for their sources. If that's what he's claiming, he's going to get a rude shock.

    Bottom line is, we don't have all the facts. Phoenix isn't some podunk town. It's hard for me to imagine that both the cops and a judge in a large metropolitan area would do something this egregious.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by ErkDemon · · Score: 4, Informative
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Conflicts_with_local_news_media

      Arrest of Phoenix New Times executives

      In October 2007, Arpaio's deputies arrested Village Voice Media executives and Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin on charges of revealing grand jury secrets. In July 2004, the New Times had published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the county attorney's office is investigating as a possible crime under Arizona state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number of articles that mentioned Arpaio. The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, as well as what websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. As an act of "civil disobedience,"[68] Lacey and Larkin published the contents of the subpoena on or around October 18, which resulted in their arrests the same day.[69] On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after declining to pursue charges against the two.[70] The Attorney General's office has since been ordered to appear before Judge Ana Baca due to missing documentation - including the original grand jury subpoenas - in the case file for the investigation of the New Times publication.[71]

      In other words, the subpoena was so outrageous that the recipients published it, and the law enforcement authorities then "lost" their copy. For a document like that to go missing intentionally would be criminal on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start. It also means that the editors can try to justify their "act of civil disobedience" by saying that they knew that the justice department was crooked, and was likely to illegally destroy its own incriminating documentation (even when that documentation has been signed personally by judges), and that publication was the only way to ensure that the document used against them could be preserved for potential future legal investigation.

      It certainly sounds crooked. It's not good when reading an online newspaper article about a potentially crooked policeman leads to a subpoena demanding that the newspaper give your IP address to the police department involved, so that they can investigate you as a potential trouble-maker.

      Apparently, reading a newspaper article about police corruption can make you a legitimate target for police investigation these days. Goodbye freedom of the press, and goodbye the citizen's ability to read about the news on their PC in their own home without the police looking over their shoulder and monitoring what they're reading.

      It'd seem that the editors probably realised that the subpoena was the bigger story, and that the Justice Department did too, which is presumably why someone there illegally destroyed or "relocated" the document.

      I was also struck by the case listed where the parents of a mentally handicapped man asked for police help to remove him from a store, the police took him away and put him in a restraint chair, then the guy then mysteriously died from a massive methamphetamine overdose. It sounds like someone in that local police force is killing people and trying to make the deaths look like junkie deaths.

  18. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't Gandhi get killed, thus losing in the end?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  19. Re:This all started when his wife by fredklein · · Score: 2, Informative

    What do you want to bet his wife was right about the harassement to begin with ?

    "Many of the reports she filed accused him of doing things when he was out of town....When he went to trial in May 2008, his charges were immediately dismissed because of lack of evidence"

  20. Not so obvious by Guillaume+Castel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    I don't know about the USA, but in France, all major ISPs provide their customers with "boxes" that can not only act as a modem/router/wireless access point, but also provide phone service over IP, IPTV, and sometimes include a hard drive for PVR functionality; mine can even act as a FTP server (that's an advertised functionality), with either the included hard drive or even a USB flash drive plugged into the box.

    Anyone worth their salt knows that, right? Anyway, I don't expect the police to be fully aware of the latest advances in consumer hardware, so I don't think it's completely illegitimate for them to seize anything that looks related to computing equipement.

  21. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gahndi won. India is free today. Some people have greater goals than their own self-preservation. That is the concept behind medals, and other forms of recognition. In fact, that is the concept behind serving one's country - in the military, or otherwise.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  22. Re:Blogger deserved it ... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if you read the article with any sense of fairness rather than biasing yourself against the police

    You mean, if you read the article biasing yourself in favor of the police...

    #
    # He responds by not following the proper course of action and filing a police report, he instead, in his words:
    So he began filing complaints with everybody from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon down to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris to no avail. He was eventually indicted for harassing his ex-wife.
    # Read that again ... he harassed SEVERAL city officials, and then expects them to side with him and understand that he's not doing the SAME THING to his wife.

    In what way is "filing complaints" harassment? If you're getting ignored through one venue, why not try bringing your plight to someone else with power? What exactly would you suggest someone do who is actually being ignored by the police?

    I also have no doubt that this guy is a douche bag who probably deserves more than he's going to get

    You know what? You're a douche bag. That doesn't mean you deserve to have your possessions confiscated by the police. Advocating the abuse of police power because someone is a "douche bag" is way, way out of line.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  23. You missed one by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using the office to put future generations into debt beyond reckoning should result in jail. Using the office to write laws to deprive them of their property (to include cash) for merely punitive matters should result in jail time.

    I don't know why so many don't see their money being taken as a violation of their rights. It is the profit of your labor yet so many turn a blind eye to its taking and outright abusive spending.

    Why should locals care? We let Congress run amok all the time so its not like the locals won't get their air of aristocracy about themselves as well. Don't worry, you will get to pay for their golden retirements too. Too many locals when booted for any reason from office hold on to their cherry pensions.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  24. The blog in question by wolf12886 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/

    Obviously the AZ police didn't like what this guy was publishing. I figure the more exposure it gets, the better.

  25. He's lucky... by WoollyMittens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's fortunate to not have been beaten half to death while they were at it. It's very easy for the police to claim he "assaulted" them.

  26. Re:No mention of encryption? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people still have more to fear from rubber-hose cryptanalysis techniques than they do from divulging their data. Deniable cryptography either equals or will be equal to guilt in $YOUR_COUNTRY.

  27. Quote - Thought Police 1984 (your fav quote ?) by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."