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.'"
If she hadn't done anything wrong.
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'?
While it's quite possible that this lady has done nothing legally wrong, I'm afraid she's going to find herself in a similar legal boat as the guys from TPB. Her blog serves no purpose but to obstruct and foil the operations of police activity, not to mention puts the lives of these police officers in jeopardy. It's hard to think what her motive could be.
Another similar case was the website which listed the names and home and office addresses of abortionists. Just for informational purposes, of course... But some lunatics went out and killed several of those doctors. The website was held accountable for incitement.
This website is, in its own way, inciteful.
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!
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.
pointing out police stupidity" - Police Chief Clancey Wiggum, Springfield at least in regards to being able to not only spot and photograph supposed to be undercover policemen but also pointing out that his cover is so flimsey that she can find out where he lives! That's just diabolical!
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.
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.
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
I cannot speak for her motives, but this task force seems to be using the threat of terrorism as a pretext to expand its operations beyond the investigation of drug trafficking. The task force also works with the FBI, which has been known to secretly engage in questionable activities in past, as part of efforts to fight "terrorism" or "communism." That is enough to get me suspicious, although I am not sure that I would go as far as this lady did.
Palm trees and 8
"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.
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)-
I've been following this story for a few years, or rather following it as it developed.
Her ex-husband is Kevin Strom, a prominent white nationalist and white supremacist* who was arrested for possession of child pornography and beating his wife (while threatening worse if she testified against him) a couple of years ago. He'd been stalking a ten-year-old girl, regularly cruising by her house, giving her gifts, sending her love letters, and proposing to her. (The kid's parents were none too thrilled.) It turned out, bizarrely, that none of that is illegal -- but possession of child pornography landed him in prison for a couple of years. He was released earlier this year. He was also, incidentally, an inveterate troll of one of my blogs, so I've got a special dislike for the guy.
Anyhow, Elisha is every bit as much of a racist as Strom, only she's also a feminist, which means that racists think she's scum, meaning that basically everybody hates her. Based on her blog entries, commenters on my blog have come to the conclusion that she was having an affair with one or more of these police officers. To my knowledge, she's never had any interaction with JADEâ"that is, neither she nor her husband have been busted for drug possession by them. So her interest in them appears to be romantic. Spurned, she's started stalking them, and expanded her interest to include all members of JADE.
What I can't shed any light on is whether or not this arrest is appropriate. I've been involved in a couple of high-profile bloggers' free expression cases (as a defendant in both cases), and though you'd think I'd rush to defend somebody in her positionâ"cretin though she may beâ"I just don't think it's cut-and-dry enough. The fact that she's putting this stuff on a blog seems to be irrelevant, by which I mean it's not a special form of expression here. She's not acting in the manner of a journalist, by which I mean that there is no goal to her coverage, no public interest being served, no story being pieced together. She's simply taking private information about private individuals who happen to work for the local government (albeit in a very private capacity) and making it public.
The question here is simply, I think, whether stalking laws are meant to cover people who are public employees. If a racist who advocates violent rebellion against black Americans starts following the a black secretary who works in the county office building, documenting her every move publicly, can the police intervene? Or is that his right, because she's opted out of a right to privacy by working for a government agency? There is a legitimate argument to be made that it is his right, in order to be consistent with what is to be expected for more prominent public employees. But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all, so maybe we should put less thought into being consistent and more into protecting our citizens. I'm not being vague to be cute -- I really don't know what's right here.
* I regret that covering these nutcases involves learning things like that there's a difference between being a white nationalist and a white supremacist.
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.
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.
Actually, it doesn't. Failing to disclose it could.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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.
"They retain their arrest powers even when off duty -- in truth, they are never off the job. "
Any reasonable citizen of this country has those same arrest powers - Citizen's Arrest.
Except a citizen that performs a "Citizen's Arrest" potentially open themselves to civil and criminal charges; they don't enjoy many of the protections that a police officer has when carrying out their official duties.
You could, for example face assault charges if you try to use force in making your arrest; and civil liability if you arrest the wrong person.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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 can confirm that you can get a security clearance with both pot and cocaine drug use in your history. I stopped using 3 years prior to applying for "clearance required" job.
In my clearance application, I explained the use of each substance. After 8 months of background checking, my clearance came thru. I worked in that environment for the next 8 years before moving into the private sector.