Slashdot Mirror
Woman With Police-Monitoring Blog Arrested
Kris Thalamus writes "The Washington Post reports that a Virginia woman is being held in custody by police who allege that information she posted on her blog puts members of the Jefferson area drug enforcement task force at risk. 'In a nearly year-long barrage of blog posts, she published snapshots she took in public of many or most of the task force's officers; detailed their comings and goings by following them in her car; mused about their habits and looks; hinted that she may have had a personal relationship with one of them; and, in one instance, reported that she had tipped off a local newspaper about their movements. Predictably, this annoyed law enforcement officials, who, it's fair to guess, comprised much of her readership before her arrest. But what seems to have sent them over the edge — and skewed their judgment — is Ms. Strom's decision to post the name and address of one of the officers with a street-view photo of his house. All this information was publicly available, including the photograph, which Ms. Strom gleaned from municipal records.'"
Yeah, it's publicly available. But what she did sounds a lot like stalking to me, which unless I'm mistaken IS illegal.
We have seen this many times in the past, and no doubt we will see it into the future.
The system is flawed, but the flaw is supposed to be secret because it is readily used by law enforcement and the like to violate the privacy of individuals. If it were public knowledge that we could access public records for such things, the laws might need to be changed and inadvertently protect the people from abuse by government and we just can't have that.
I'd say: "If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear".
Funny how law enforcement always trots out that line, but goes ballistic when the people apply it to them instead.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
This just another case of rights vs responsibilites. I don't think she has done anything wrong per se but she has acted in an irresponsible manner. These police officers deal, on a day to day basis, with people that range from mostly harmless to exceedingly dangerous. Posting their movements, home addresses and other information all on one place, I would argue, diminishes their safety. The information might have been publicly available but there was a certain amount of affort required to collect it. I would imagine a large number of the people these police officers interact with couldn't be bothered to put in that effort themselves but if it's as easy as just going to a blog maybe they would do something.
In an ideal world the police would have been allowed to just go round to her and ask her to act more responsibly. Let her have her blog just make the infromation a little less specific and perhaps throw in some dummy data for good measure.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
One of the peculiar things about gathering intelligence on someone or a group is that most of the information you need is not secret. It's right there out in the open.
This is a classic example of what happens when someone gathers public data and then uses it. The Police are upset because they didn't take precautions and they never thought anyone would be so obsessive about their identities and behaviors. This is exactly the same reason that so many police are scared of trunk-tracking scanners. They would like to think their communications amongst their group is private.
If the police are truly interested in maintaining a deep cover, they should do it with full legal backing and not make any half assed efforts, hoping that nobody will bother to track them down.
My guess is that this woman will beat the charge and teach cops across the nation an important lesson: The public is watching.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
This is pure manure. It is in the public interest to know what the police are doing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The purpose it serves is to express her freedom of speech. She needs no other reason, other people can held liable for their own actions.
Something you are forgetting is police officers serve the public and are on public payroll, thus their jobs are public information and so is what they do.
Now doctors on the other hand are not on public payroll (for the time being), especially abortion doctors who are private practice.
You are trying to compare a civil servant to a civilian. Nice try at fuzzing the line there.
Ironically enough your name is very fitting.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Using your logic, it should be OK for any ordinary citizen to be stalked in a similar manner both while on the job and off.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind a bit if she followed your every move at work, at home, while spending time with your family...and then posting this information online.
Why is it OK when its a police officer?
When the boot is on the other foot.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Whomever modded the parent post needs to read. First, she didn't violate ANYONES privacy. All the information she used was publicly available. Second, Why do you put police agencies on a pedestal "or worse yet with the law enforcement" worse yet? I think law enforcement can take care of themselves. The "worse yet" should be that they arrested her just because they didn't like what she was doing.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
It's certainly okay when it's, say, a Senator. Our legal system seems to think it's okay when it's Michael Jackson.
The police, as public servants who wield a great deal of power in a rather unique way (the sanctioned use of violence), probably fall somewhere in between senators and Joe Schmoe.
Most senators and Michael Jackson wouldn't pass the background check to be a cop, anyway.
Quite frankly, anyone who stalks Michael Jackson (before or after his demise) has enough issues already.
Folks, whether you like her blog or not, and whether you think the cops are over reacting or not, one thing is for sure. If she's following officers and photographing them, that sure sounds like stalking to me. I bet each and every one of you who is voicing support for her would feel differently if someone were following you around with a camera.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Nope.
Police are the government. They retain their arrest powers even when off duty -- in truth, they are never off the job.
We have the absolute right to monitor and comment on how the government does its job. If such scrutiny makes it harder for the government to do some things, maybe that's because those are things it shouldn't be doing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why is it OK when its a police officer?
The point is that it's NOT OK (which is what the GP was saying).
The police already have near-ubiquitous tracking of the plebs (license plates, cell phones, 'net access, crime/speed/toll/stoplight cameras, bank statements). All that information is being tracked all the time automatically (it's just a matter of filtering and storage which moore's law will fix)
It's just interesting to see the law enforcement reaction when the tables are turned.
So many of the police-state arguments that the purveyors of the same tactics don't like being at the receiving end of:
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear..."
"You don't have an inherent right to privacy..."
"There's no such thing as privacy in public areas..."
It seems when a private citizen tracks a small group of people it's "stalking", when large groups of government officials track the entire population it's just fine.
End up with drug dealers on your street harassing your right to a safe community who will you call?
If you really want the drug dealers off the street, put them in stores.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Regardless of the relationship between the involved parties (whether an officer investigating a woman without a warrant, or a woman investigating a policeman without a warrant), following someone, gathering information about them, then posting that information in a public place with the intent to complicate or endanger their life is harassment. It's usually just called "stalking."
She posted the location of that officer's home with the full knowledge that it could endanger his life. Also, she "detailed their comings and goings by following them in her car; mused about their habits and looks; [and] hinted that she may have had a personal relationship with one of them."
She was a stalker, simply put.
Yes, her speech is protected, but when she's actively attempting to endanger the lives of those officers, it crosses the line. And you can't tell me that posting the home address, photo of that home, and personal details of an officer isn't a move that will obviously endanger the policeman's life, and the lives of his family. If this were done to anyone, it would be dangerous.
Yeah, but just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should. People go on and on about the rights their society gives them without bothering to mention the responsibilities. It's not that far a stretch to say that you have a responsibility to not wander around the President with a loaded gun or put the lives of the families of peace officers in danger. Even if you knew for certain a cop was crooked, posting pictures of his house strikes me not only as obsessive, but also retributive without any court oversight, which is not what is supposed to happen in a society with the rule of law.
Bibo Ergo Sum.
After doing some looking around, it strikes me that the woman is an obsessive stalker with a personal grudge against (and past inter-personal involvement) with a police force.
This doesn't have any of the hallmarks of the typical corrupt police arrest story. It looks rather like a badge groupie generated some kind of love/sex related drama and when things got too hot for the object/s of her passion, found herself on the wrong side of some story. When she started to make noise and become embarrassing, all of her various 'friends' on the force probably rejected her, taking the side of their co-worker because of the strong code of brotherhood among police. So now she's feeling personally jilted, bitter and enraged and is trying to take revenge on an entire police division. It sounds like she is serving a selfish personal agenda rather than striving toward any kind of high-minded socio-political goal.
But that's just my take on the situation. It may be totally unfair, but until I see some information to the contrary, that's the theory I'm going with. When it comes to these things, the tiresome reality in hand is very often the result of predictable sex and self-preservation based emotional responses.
-FL
"She should be forcibly moved to a high-crime area and forced to fend for herself."
Ah, how ignorant you are of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. You WERE born yesterday, I can tell.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Except that she did. If she had done this to anyone else, you can bet your ass she'd be busted for stalking. Why is it any different when she has an unhealthy obsession with following cops around?
Do you believe that your boss has the right to track your every move once you clock out for the day? No? Then why do you think we have the right to do the same to off-duty police officers?
While the woman from TFA may not have exclusively done off-duty stalking, how is digging up and posting where an officer lives (complete with pictures and map coordinates) anything more than off-duty stalking of said officer?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
She was tracking police officers while they were on duty. These things should be a matter of public record. It's just that a private citizen is also gathering the data and disseminating it, without a police officer being able to sanitize the information or wait on a FOIA request for two weeks.
The activities of a uniformed police officer are not that sensitive. If they were, the officer would not be uniformed. Well, there are potential nefarious uses for realtime police tracking, but twelve hours after the fact, it's hard to use the information.
They don't work for us, they work for the city that employed them. We may pay their salaries through taxes but we have absolutely no control over them, we cannot direct their investigations, we cannot dictate their patrol routs, we do not approve or disprove their hiring, raises, performance reviews, benefits package, vacations time or anything of the sort. Their work does have the public interest in mind but that doesn't mean they work for us. You certainly wouldn't think walmart employees work for you just because your puchases pay a portion of their salaries would you.
The city doesn't even work for you. They work for the city. The only control you have is your vote on a few elected officials who you hope will have your interest in mind when making decisions. However, there is nothing forcing them to hold your interest or even protect them.
I'm not saying the woman was _only_ doing off-duty stalking, but how is posting their home address, along with pictures and map coordinates, anything less than off-duty stalking.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Off duty police officers also retain protections against their own violations of law and lawsuits to which an ordinary citizen doesn't.
If the playing field was level, I would understand but they are not the same. And yes, if an off duty fireman runs into a building that's on fire to save someone just like anyone else can do, they still retain their protections against lawsuits and personal liability and so on which ordinary people do not have. Well, at least in states without a "Good Samaritan" law.
If you read the article, she was doing this to undercover officers as well. Including listing their real names, addresses, etc. To the uniformed officers, of course what she did was legal. To an undercover officer, I would have to assume there is some part of the law to prevent this sort of thing. Interfering in an investigation or the like.
IANAL, but I thought stalking was grounds for issuing a restraining order--not arrest until some other law was broken.
More to the point--as public employees, granted power and trust, their particular duties justify a lesser degree of privacy than is common in other professions. If they want to make posting public information "illegal"--I'm actually fine with that--as long as they make ...making it public at the origin illegal to. Take back all those tax/drivers/property/court records, and make sure they're only accessible with a warrant. No more electronic searches.
As it is, this lady just compiled public information as defined by long held court precedent. As far as I can tell, the department ought to have a few charges for unlawful arrest coming--but nobody will touch it when a ten foot poll unless there's public outcry first. Even then--how much do you want to be whoever orders it never gets worse than a disciplinary leave of one week without pay.
Except the police are public servants. While at work or doing work-related things they're public employees and their actions are not guaranteed the same privacy a "normal" citizen is.
Watching his house is a bit iffy, but if the picture and information were publicly available then publishing that information shout not have any penalty. Note - they didn't arrest her for stalking.
It's amazing how the police fight to their dying breath to hide what they do on a regular basis. Not only undercover, but try following a cop car or beat cop around with a camcorder. I bet it doesn't take more than a few minutes before you're questioned and told to stop...and when you don't listen I'd give about even odds you're arrested, detained, or have some other right violated.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Whoah, Whoah, WHoah, Slow down a little bit here.
This has nothing to do with 1st Amendment rights or equal opportunity for surveillance. I would be the first person to support that position. This is an instance in which I agree with the cops.
US Citizens don't have the right to go on military bases, and top secret facilities and publish pictures and information about what they see and the personnel. There is an agreement, or general consensus, that it is in our best interests for our government to operate with some privacy at times.
Should CNN be right on the spot with our special forces giving away their position to the enemy? I don't think so, and that's a reasonable position to take. I did not support the war in Iraq, but that does not mean I would want to put our soldiers at risk either.
She was not just writing a blog about police activities. She was putting DEA agents at risk by disclosing their operations and locations. That went too far. Put together a citizen's advisory board, whatever. I support some oversight. Not letting every criminal know exactly where the DEA agents live.
Is there some inequity in citizens protecting private information of DEA agents? Oh yeah, plenty. Government does not seem to be much interested in protecting our information and privacy. However, tin foil hattery aside, are most us really at risk of a bunch of men with assault weapons coming to kill us because we interfered with their business models? No. DEA agents are really at risk and ostensibly we should protect them, as it is in the best interests of society. Please note, I am absolutely against the War on Drugs, so I would want to protect undercover cops, not drug enforcement specifically.
I know you want to protect us against overzealous government, I do too. However, this is one of those rare, rare, instances in which the police really do have a point here.
US Citizens don't have the right to go on military bases, and top secret facilities and publish pictures and information about what they see and the personnel.
That I agree with, but, the blogger wasn't going onto secret military facilities or compromising classified information. She was following public officials around as they executed their duties. As the article notes, she was not charged with obstruction of justice or interference with an officer of the law. This implies that the police department did not have enough evidence to charge her under those laws. The fact that they had to rely on such a broadly worded statute to make their case highlights the weakness of their position.
She was not just writing a blog about police activities. She was putting DEA agents at risk by disclosing their operations and locations.
Again, if there was any evidence of that, the police department would have charged with obstruction of justice, not "identifying a police officer with intent to harass".
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Would I be comfortable with it? No. Would I prefer it never happen? Yes. Do I believe it should be illegal? No.
I have quite a list of things I don't like or wouldn't want to see happen, but I don't want to see any of them made illegal.
In fact I see quite a few groups across the USA trying to outlaw some activity or other that they don't like. I disagree with those folks because I don't think that something should be illegal just because I don't like it.
Would I be comfortable with it? No. Would I prefer it never happen? Yes. Do I believe it should be illegal? No.
I have quite a list of things I don't like or wouldn't want to see happen, but I don't want to see any of them made illegal.
In fact I see quite a few groups across the USA trying to outlaw some activity or other that they don't like. I disagree with those folks because I don't think that something should be illegal just because I don't like it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you an example of what it means to be 'an American'. 'Land of the free,' has been desirable since our inception.
In short: This. Very this.