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.'"
Did she do it to annoy them or was there a point to her outing these people as members of the task force? What good does it do to single out a police officer by posting his private address with pictures of his home? I could understand publishing pictures or other records of actual transgressions, but just stalking the police doesn't seem right.
I think she did right. I agree that it is unfair for the targeted policemen, but she tested the invasive laws' safeguards. Policemen can exchange private data with impunity. She shows that we can't exchange public data without troubles. There is one theory that says that the privacy invasion that the police is authorized to do is balanced by the public scrutiny they are under. This event is a counter argument to this theory.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
It should be okay for any citizen to stalk another, on or off the job, given that it is seems to be okay for the government to stalk any citizen.
This is pure manure. It is in the public interest to know what the police are doing.
Despite what I'd characterise as the reasonableness of the OP's position, I'm afraid I agree with your first statement.
As for the public interest argument, there's no doubt merit in it, but that's not to say that there shouldn't be limitations to what the public needs to know. I've had look at the woman's blog. Amusing to the casual reader, but it does appear to come close to the line of what should be considered acceptable, or legal. If it isn't, then I'd expect some justification for why it isn't, rather than a simple assertion by police sargeant.
My own opinion is that laws concerning police officers are over-broad, and are easily abused. I'd also wager that they're regularly abused. The indicident that led to the recent Obama Beer Summit is a good example where we can see how being disrespectful to a cop gets elevated to the crime of interfering with the duties of a police officer. Physical training, automatic weapons and kevlar vests protects against sticks and stones, but the officer is unable to deal with being called a bad name?
In the USA it's not just an "idea" - it's the absolute black letter law of the land.
If you want to make changes then modify the constitution via the legally established method.
WRONG. "Every man for himself" is preferable to a group of armed thugs that can make up whatever rules they feel like to enforce upon the populace while at the same time ignoring any rules that apply to themselves.
"Why is it OK when its a police officer?"
Because our money pays for their work - we are their employer and as their employer we should have every right to monitor them to ensure they do the job we pay them to do, and to ensure they perform that job PROPERLY. Police are PUBLIC SERVANTS - they are not entitled to the level of privacy a normal citizen would expect, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW A PUBLIC FIGURE. This means they are absolutely fair game for newspapers and independent published papers.
And when it's a matter of public record which is in the public domain - they have no reasonable expectation of privacy of that information, which includes court records available through a simple FOIA request.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The law enforcement officers KNEW they had a family when they signed up for this job.
This is why most civilian and military police action that involves heavy risk, is often done by people with no family, or SUFFICIENT barriers are put into place to conceal their identity. The poor decisions by the officers, as well as the department as a whole as it relates to assessment of risk, is the only thing that can put these officers, or their families at risk.
Law enforcement personnel always have to hide behind a mask in a nanny-state. When free citizens elect their protectors, who are part of their community, the protectors are valued neighbors who in turn expect and generally receive the support of the other members of the community (Posse in the old sense).
When the law enforcement are hired guns (Her blog at http://iheartejade.blogspot.com, expresses the view that the task force is "nothing more than a group of arrogant thugs.") who have to wear masks and hide themselves for fear of retribution, you need laws like anti-harassment one.
It should not be a crime to annoy the cops, and while her posting of the home address of the officer was absolutely inappropriate, it certainly doesn't justify a "raid". They could have sent 2 officers to calmly go inform her that she was under arrest, and they didn't need to go with a felony charge.
This free citizen of the US and mother has been in jail a month and likely to remain much longer. If convicted, she'll likely serve prison time. If the ACLU gets invovled they'll probably get the whole mess overturned as unconstitutional, but at tremendous cost to the TAXPAYERS and with much jail-time for the citizen. This situation was allowed to get out of hand by incompetent management who do indeed have at least some "arrogant thugs" overstepping their authority.
Note: How exactly is an individual free citizen supposed to bring to light the abuses of the police if free speech rights are denied? Her actions are PRECISELY the reason that the free speech right was identfied. To allow citizens to SPEAK OUT about the percieved abuses of power by government entities.
"It's usually just called "stalking""
Are you nuts? There are strict requirements for "stalker" to apply. The ones you mention don't meet the criteria. At least not in New Jersey, where I live.
When people, such as yourself, are allowed to label people as a stalker simply because YOU think they are our society is falling apart.
I was recently charged with 'criminal harassment' by a women who gave me permission FIVE times to take pictures of her 'public spectacle" which she created for the world to see. Now, I have to spend money to defend my right to photographer her signs.
Take a look here: http://BernieSayers.com Look at the videos I took. See what you think.
Maybe I submit my story to SlashDot....Anyone want to do that??
By the same token, not all speech is protected, the courts (up to an including the supreme court) have ruled several times that for any society to function there must be rules governing what speech is protected. This is why slander and libel are illegal, it is also why you can prosecute people for hate crimes, or for plotting to kill people.
What the courts will decide in this particular case has yet to be seen, however it's not quite as simple as yelling "free speech!" because we all know that there are limits to that (and by necessity).
Having been the victim of a similar website 5 years ago, I can certainly imagine how the police must feel in this particular case.
This post isn't trolling. Obama admitted in his book "Dreams From My Father" that he had used both cocaine and pot. That would disqualify him from any security clearance.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html
Sorry, no. If the police think that they have the right to track us 24/7 whenever we are in a public place with cameras up on every corner, we also have the right to follow them around 24/7 and record everything they do. They don't get to have it both ways.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Kind of like Richard Armitage exposing an undercover agent? I believe her identity was classified information. Revealing classified information is against the law.
Oh wait, nothing happened to him for revealing classified information...
I guess it depends on who you are when you reveal the identity of an undercover agent.
Ramen
It's necessary. Cops, especially undercover cops, are some of the most criminally bent people out there. They protect certain drug gangs and act as enforcers against their opposition. They engage in burglaries and assassinations. They run shakedown scams against petty dealers. They infiltrate legitimate non violent political organizations and try to foment violence at demonstrations (that's about as mean and rotten and crooked as it gets IMO). And EVERY cop out there knows that the drug business wouldn't even be possible without corrupt cops, judges and high level bureaucrats, and it goes right to the top of the federal government in certain agencies.
And whenever they get caught, they are always so quick to say "oh, just a few bad apples", etc. Bullshit. Google has thousands of hits on police corruption. Today..a few good apples in whole barrels of rotten ones. The US is this freeking close to second and third world status when it comes to this, complete with death squads and "disappearing" squads. When they start covering their faces and making it illegal to get pictures and they cover their badges and just mumble "security" for everything they do..you are that close.
I've known and interacted with a *lot* of cops because of a previous job which I won't ge into. After awhile they sort of forget you aren't a cop and let their guard down and speak to you just like they speak to their fellow cops, or they aren't as careful and you can overhear their conversations with each other. Damn SCARIEST crap you will ever hear, unless you have lived someplace with an active war going on and the local warlord turns his cops loose on the people. We are *that* close to that now.
They are not your friend, they have no interest in following any laws themselves, they really are out to get all they can and to hell with any constitution or "laws", and will use every tactic they can come up with to protect their criminal guild, their gang, because it is them versus everyone else and you are just a target and a resource to exploit. You are the enemy, it is that simple. If you aren't a cop, you are the enemy.
There's a few that are honest and so on, I've met them too, but they are an extreme minority. Most who start honest and want to stay honest quit and get out of that work as soon as they find out how bad it really is, and how it really is has nothing to do with this public picture they try to project. It is way closer to paramilitary robbery and death squads now than it is to the "officer friendly" crap they claim in public all the time.
Want to make the drug scene less violent? That's so easy it's ridiculous. Get rid of the stupid anti drug laws and admit reality. You wouldn't even need "undercover drug warriors" then. Once the huge illegal cash profits are removed, the crime and violence drops way down. This was proven back during Prohibition, completely 100% proven, and we had the same rise of corrupt violent cops back then, protecting the big bootleggers. Exactly the same.
But you won't see the cop gangs wanting that, because they profit from it in huge sums of cash (look at what they drive and where they live, then look up local pay scales..see anything screwy there? Completely blatant that most are on the take) plus they get to be violence addicts legally (most have a natural bully instinct, you'd have to be blind to not see this) and get away with it.
Now I am the first one to say that theoretically we need cops, but I also will say we do not need the way that system is now.
Right now, to help reform all of this we need two things badly: the federal government needs to really enforce the illegal immigration laws on the books, including the provisions of fining the employers. And we need to decriminalize drugs, at least have them be legal and under some similar regulations as alcohol. That would do more to help to bring policing back to community policing than anything else. Well, three things, we need to abandon the concept of police as military, starting with their military styled ranking system and conduct. Cops are NOT the military and even letting them get close to being the military is a terrible and harmful idea.
I would feel harassed if somebody would take off-duty photos of me and release them together with my real names, my address, and other *private* information. And she also is playing criminals into their hands by releasing a lot of on-duty information, which may not be illegal, but, unless the cop's corrupt, still rather ass-ish. The charges are completely fair in my opinion, and so was taking her into custody. She has been warned before that she was in violation of the law, and she didn't stop, so they took her in.
No, I agree with you. But, I think you missed my point. If Obama was as disillusioned as he claimed, there's a very good chance he surpassed the limits. If I recall correctly, no 'hard' substance use (such as cocaine--anything harder than marijuana really) is permitted at all and marijuana use must be limited to 10 occurrences or less. I'm pretty sure Obama would fail on both of those counts.
You must be confused. Celebs are "stalked" all the time. That's legal. It's a huge industry. If only we were so lucky to have police, politians and other "authorities" treated the same way. If only we saw their faces EVERY DAY in the pages of tabloid newspapers!
She's a reporter, not a stalker. And these officers are armed anyway. They have nothing to fear. Except for some of them being exposed as the corrupt, evil men that they are.
Doesn't it make you even a little uneasy that the police, who are supposed to be model citizens who we can trust to protect us, cannot stand the light?
No. Worse. The cops, corporations, the municipality and the State share my information with people who might one day bust down my front door and gun me down as a terrorist. And if they turn out to be wrong (almost 100% sure, because I am not a terrorist), they have the full protection of the State and get off scott-free.
Far fetched? It almost happened to four Moroccan families in Amsterdam, because a disgruntled family member fingered them as potential terrorists.
So please fuck off with your authoritarian bullshit. My uncle was decorated for helping shoot people like you, and I am damn proud of him.
Mart
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Yeah, stalkers? Not of the fun. I was playing bass in a band and ended up with one for six months, so not fun. With those type you don't really have to do squat, as they cook up all this "hidden meaning" bullshit for even the most innocent thing. What did I do? I gave her a free drink. Part of our pay with the clubs was besides the door we got free drinks, and I don't drink. So if I saw someone that looked like they were having a bad day I'd give them a free drink. hell I just grabbed a coke at the start of the night and wasn't gonna use my tab anyway.
I'd come out and find notes under my windshield, get creepy little phone calls, have her show up at work, after awhile you start looking over your shoulder wondering if they are gonna jump out at you. SO not fucking fun. I got lucky that the guitarist of a band I was hired gunning for spotted her one night and thought she was 'cute". I tried to warn the poor bastard, but he thought with his little head. I ran into him a couple of years later and he told me he ended up with a trashed car, and two years worth of restraining orders and other hassles before he could get rid of her. believe me, stalking is NOT a nice thing, not nice at all. Picture the worst GF you've ever had and multiply it by a factor of 100. And like I said all I did was give her a free drink.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
a promise nearly impossible to keep, that haunts me to this day. Back when I was young we had D.A.R.E. day and these new COPS came to school with their equipment. They had their weapons and said how they would use them against us. It realy freaked out half the class anyone can be that cruel to anyone outside another's phylosophy. They showed us their cars and they all looked like a tank with a kennel to restrain the passenger. Then there was the Drug Kit. He opened that thing up and said perhaps 30 seconds worth of information for every one of the 50 different drugs in there, and how some of them he bought from the street just 100 yards up the road. It turns out he bought most of all the drugs in that glass box, but for some strange reason the State forgives him from buying a drug so long as he arrests and steals all the property that came in contact with whomever sold him that drug.
That's the same day a friend of mine introduced me to a real police officer called Jack McLamb. Now this guy is a barrel of good apples in a sea of hell. Some of his horror stories were just unbearable, like how for 3 years he was sent to shootouts and denied back-up because he thought he fellow cops wanted the drug dealers and robbers to kill him. He finally left, and went in on a quiet community at the top of a mountain in his same Idaho. Has a radio show I think on World Wide First Amendment Radio (WWFAR.COM), but can't be sure because I haven't heard it for a while.
The Plame affair would be akin to somebody serving on the municipal council or in the mayor's office that revealed information about the undercover police officer. That would indeed be a security violation, and subject to applicable laws. In this case it was a private citizen using open sources.
Spot on here, on noting the differences.
The whole point of the blog was to put the media spotlight on the actions and affairs of this particular task forces, on the assumption that they were corrupt and needing to be monitored. It is precisely for this purpose that the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution was written, to give those who might be reporting this sort of information some sort of legal protection. This is clearly political speech, and the arrest was made explicitly to squelch this kind of speech.
If I were an officer, would I want my life put under this sort of detailed scrutiny? Having had police officers examine my own life in this sort of detail, I guess I don't mind having the tables turned a bit. I am certain that this task force has at least examined some of their potential suspects on more than one occasion with at least this much detail, and perhaps more using tools available only to law enforcement personnel.
Still, I can understand why these officers are pissed, and getting somebody who routinely carries a gun to be pissed at you is never a good thing to do under any circumstances. That they choose to invoke the law instead of doing something more drastic is mainly a matter of training and temperament in this case.
Of course people are going to go that way (and the myriad of other ways, hoping/waiting for an amnesty, whatever), when it's far easier to do that than do it properly (multiple hour flights to US consulates in home countries for interviews, medicals, financial backgrounds... note that I am not disputing the need for these, but they're often not required if you 'beg forgiveness', rather than 'asking permission' - the US has really shot itself in the foot with some of its immigration policies).
"They work for us" is never an excuse to jeopardize the safety of anybody.
Tell that to Purina; my grandfather went down a four story elevator shaft in 1959 because they were too cheap to put doors on the elevator. Dozens were burned to death in a chicken plant fire in the '80s because management chained the fire doors shut to keep employees from stealing chicken. At least on that occasion, someone went to prison -- for two years. I'd call it mass murder, apparently killinig your employees IS ok.
Things like that is why OSHA came about.
Free Martian Whores!