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.
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!
"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"
Is it in the public's interest for individual officers to have their names, pictures, addresses and photographs of their houses published to the world?
Would you appreciate it if that were done to yourself?
Now imagine that you work out in public, and there are people with whom you come into contact (and reprimand) who may have violent tendencies. Can you imagine that? Good! Now ask yourself those first two questions again. Do you still think that that information is in the public interest?
Oh wait, you posted on Slashdot as an Anonymous Coward, so obviously you fear anyone finding out anything about yourself, yet you most likely don't do anything more dangerous than working at McDonalds.
Just for the icing on the cake, her blog is called "I HeArTE JADE" which to me (I may be reading into this the wrong way) comes across as "I HATE JADE" and even a quick perusal of the site leads me to believe that she is acting out of pure vindictiveness, while trying to pretend that it is out of awe and respect.
I am not stubborn. I am right!
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!
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?
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!
They did. They charged her with "identifying a police officer with intent to harass" which is a fancy way of saying "stalking a police officer."
Or are you complaining that stalking a starlet or ex-girlfriend is not -precisely- the same crime as stalking a police officer?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
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
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.
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.