Slashdot Mirror
LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones
jfruhlinger writes "People are starting to comb through the details of the law enforcement documents made public by LulzSec. Blogger Kevin Fogarty noticed one interesting trend: The cops seem very anxious about iPhones, particularly apps that would allow encounters with police officers to be recorded. Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."
Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.
none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand? they are public servants out in public serving the public, no chance of privacy, the sooner they get this trough their head the better behaved the police will be and the less chance of law abiding citizens being brutalized...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs
Of course cell phones aren't covered by the 4th amendment. Only Post-it notes would be.
...to record which apps and what data was recently accessed.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
A public servant is extremely concerned about their privacy. Stop being a PUBLIC servant you moron!
Law enforcement still pandering to the lowest common denominator I see....
First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority). And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.
There is no trust anymore, which in my opinion is killing the fabric of the country. Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. The government looks at us like a vast field of something to be harvested from rather than a collection of individuals, families, and businesses that rely on them to create conditions of security, prosperity, and liberty. Instead we get "you little people", "don't bother me", and "Don't you know who I am?" attitudes among other things. I don't know how to take things back, but it take a paradigm shift I fear.
Because fuck you, that's why.
49 to go :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I say the next killer app is one that streams what you're recording to offsite storage so that it can't be confiscated by smashing your phone/camera. If there's not enough bandwidth it can scale down to sending keyframes and low quality audio and pad out the rest of the video when you stop recording.
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.
Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Loading...
Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...is the document specifically instructing officers, that when they take an iPhone, for any reason, to stick it into a Faraday bag.
The document specifically mentions the "Where's My iPhone" app, which can not only locate the phone, but remotely wipe the phone.
Thereby making it useless for any kind of investigation. And because everything is backed up to iTunes, the owner can just re-sync their phone as soon as they get it back.
Here's an excerpt from the faraday-bags.com website, emphasis mine...
So even if it's inside the bag, they'll be able to slurp it without you or your friends/family being able to wipe it.
[End Of Line]
If you are in public where you have a right to be, then whoever else is there with you has no privacy. You can video tape cops if you want to goto the trouble. If they're complaining about it, then they need to find a new job or do theirs right.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
ITFS(in the freaking subject)
an argument that is made is that a video camera could affect the behavior of witnesses they are interviewing.
which begs the question: why are you interviewing sensitive witnesses in PUBLIC?
Try the reverse and see if it changes your opinion:
...what legitimate reasons do the public have for avoiding being recorded [in public locations]?
The sooner they can get you talking, the sooner you might divulge something they can use. Even if they can't use it, they can ask you the same question again later and if your answer is not exactly the same then your story changed. Once your version can be called into question because
you are changing your story (lying), they win.
Wow, I never thought of it. Trying the reverse! Amazing. All dogs are mammals. True, I think... Let's try the reverse. All mammals are dogs. No, that's not right. Guess the first one was wrong as well. My God you've opened my eyes, thank you so much.
before you become excitedly aware of the stupidity in arizona realize first that arizona is the home of...
... and of cultural significance, no ports of entry via sea
open carry gun laws, for any of the numerous allowable gun types including assault rifles
recently, no more permits to conceal a weapon (careful when you google this, you will probably find outdated info)
legalized fully-automatic assault rifles for weapons made before 1986 (at least you have to register these!)
driver licenses that don't expire for 36 years, after which a mail-in renewal (read: no new testing) will have you looking 16 again at 52 yrs young
renegade sheriff Arpaio who feels like he is immune to federal investigation
average summer heat waves of 110 F (think what this does to your brain and your car, and both at the same time)
highest rate of methamphetamine use in the country
hopefully, knowing what is par for the arizona course helps put the article's issue into perspective.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
If those examining it have any special tools and you haven't taken extraordinary measures, you should assume all of it has been.
The public doesn't have the power the cops have. The public doesn't have a given duty to strip others of their rights - which, incidentally, is largely done when people without said authority do so. So, the public is supposed to be leaving everyone else to their own business, but an on duty cop is supposed to be keeping a small segment of the public from interfering with the lives of the other, larger portion of the public.
I don't know why a police officer is ever allowed to NOT be recorded while on duty. Judges don't get to hide what they are doing and neither should police officers. These recordings should be kept by someone unaffiliated with the police, and in particular absolutely should never under any circumstance be kept by the police themselves. The equipment should be robust and if it is malfunctioning for any reason that should be cause for an investigation (possibly brief in many cases) into the conduct of the police officer even in the absence of any complaints or other indications of a problem. An officer or department with an unlikely number of malfunctions should receive special attention to discover the technical or non-technical reason for it. These recordings should be preserved indefinitely. Obviously the recordings should be confidential and should not ever be e.g. connected to the internet. The public don't really need to know what Joe and Bob were discussing about their lives while waiting for something to happen.
The only counter to all this really is that lawyers can easily make even the most routine arrest look like abuse or file for a dismissal of charges based on the idea that the cop didn't properly follow procedure. Much like the average driver is breaking the law in some respect the moment he pulls out of the drive, the average cop isn't always going to follow the strictest form of the law to get his job done and it's not because he's a bad cop. It's because the law is so complicated and full of minutia that it's easy to get a case thrown out on a technicality. Not that minutia is bad but sometimes it serves no good purpose. Specially if it hinders good cops from capturing truly bad people.
So once again, partly blame the lawyers and law makers on this one.
There is no right to privacy at work. Even for private businesses. Well, in MD anyway.
Why? Because every armchair quarterback with 20/20 hind-site will be on you like a pack of flies. Sure we all want to bust the Rodney King beaters, but who can justify every working moment at their jobs when the whole world gets to critique? it degenerates to "OMG! He just sat 4 8 hrs radaring speeders....go catch some real crims!!"
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Ive heard things like "obstruction of justice" getting thrown around - without any further explanation
Context, I've seen a million and one videos of a cops beating on some guy, but I very rarely see videos that shows the precursor.
Glad they dropped the dox on this situation. Perfect example of hypocrisy amongst the swine. There are many new video recording apps for iphone/ipod touch that record video to a remote server in real time so if the pigs do confiscate the phone your videos will be untouchable.
I used to be afraid of the dark.
Yeah, but they are ever so happy to apply the law down the last detail and critique everything we do. But we're being "nitpicky" by examining what they do with half as much detail.
That right there is how they admit it. By watching their actions you can see the thought process.
"Oh well no one thinks we should arrest cops for every little single detail when detaining suspects. They are good men performing good work."
But Mr. Black going about his day can't possibly be an innocent man going about. Let's pull out the big magnifying glass and microscope and search his phone and pat him down.
But we're crazy if cops are simply recorded doing public work under the public's dollar. Yeah.... that's "nitpicky" for sure.
FUCKING PIGS
I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...
Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.
Loading...
OMG. I never thought of it. Your amazing argument has illuminated all the possible aspects of conversation that could have occurred! Of course!! Mammals are dogs! Why didn't I think of this before!?
You should be ashamed of your comment, it adds nothing to the discussion.
The argument should be that all public locations are free to be recorded. Cops should be allowed to record, businesses should be allowed to record, and the public should be allowed to record. Equal rights to public space for all.
who sits there sniping away about abusive/brutal police officers to go out and try doing the job they do for a week before making judgements with no grounding in personal experience.
I assume your logic goes like this
"He deserved the shit kicked out of him. Look at what he did to the cops!!"
My answer - Someone killed a cop, does that give the cop the right to kill them?
If so, then just roll up judges and juries, do away with them, and be honest about it.
The police are there to enforce the law.
Enforce the law, not dispense justice - that's what judges and juries are supposed to do - and for good reason.
When a cop beats someone, regardless of what the "beatee" did, it is a criminal offense. Sure, lots of police get away with it, or find justification for doing so, but that doesn't change it into something lawful.
Rodney King (or whoever is getting beat today, or right this minute) may have been a thug, but even thugs are subject to a fair trial and justice meted out by a judge and jury. And if the person isn't a thug, and injustice is surely being given - isn't the travesty that much worse?
Context may make someone's bad behavior more UNDERSTANDABLE, but it won't ever justify it.
It appears you seem to misunderstand justification and understanding.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
I've seen a fair number of videos of police acting properly and a fair number where they act improperly - most of them had more than enough context to make that sort of judgement.
Loading...
The sooner they can get you talking, the sooner you might divulge something they can use. Even if they can't use it, they can ask you the same question again later and if your answer is not exactly the same then your story changed. Once your version can be called into question because you are changing your story (lying), they win.
Four words: I want a lawyer.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Boy, those iPhones sure are pesky what with their ability to record video and whatnot. It's a good thing those sucky Android phones can't do things like that.
Sorry. What's that?...
... should be worried about doing something wrong, not worried about getting caught doing something wrong.
Except of course the entire industry of finding and avoiding those cops that are doing it. FuzzBusters etc.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Why are they worried about being recorded? Only people who have something to hide worry about that.
Clearly the cops must be guilty of SOMETHING, so up against the wall and spread 'em, piggies!
(see Illinois v. Wardlow for the reference.)
Ok, now THIS is a good information. They are more useful than that pussy Julian Assange.
"...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
Being busted by the Feds, like my local Sheriff "Big Dog" Melvin, or the many people Whitey Bulger will out if he doesn't get whacked or die mysteriously before testifying!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Then think about this; Ask the police how they feel about Internal Affairs Officers, then you'll see that the police don't want to be policed,
"What legitimate reasons do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way -- much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Don't Talk To Cops videos, parts 1 and 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
At my work, I'm responsible for various chunks of municipal infrastructure that carry Big Important Messages such as "We need a doctor right now," "This cop needs help," "This firefighter's in trouble," etc.
When I was hired, I had to sign a fifty-page document that agrees to the following. The cameras pick me up when I get within 100 feet of the office, they stay on me every minute of every day and the video is archived for years. I agree to audio recordings at any time. My ID badge is trackable and my movements recorded. While I am acting as a representative and employee of this company, all communications of any kind are company property. I have no expectations of privacy at all while I am acting on behalf of the company. All phone calls -- cell, landline and voip -- are recorded. Every keystroke is logged. All emails and IMs are stored. For the 9-12 hours a day that I am doing my job, there is no such thing as a "personal" conversation.
If I make a mistake of any kind -- whether it had consequences or not -- the company is within their rights to fire me on the spot without recourse. I have agreed to mediation, meaning I cannot take my employer to court and I will lose any disagreements. If I make a mistake anyone notices, the company will cheerfully feed me to the customer's lawyers.
All of this because my actions carry a risk of liability for the company and a theoretical risk to human life.
Why on Earth shouldn't someone who carries live ammunition be held to at least the same standard? If Seal Team Six can do their jobs on camera with a live mike, why can't local law enforcement?
And by the way, that "Slut Walk" comment came from a Toronto police officer who implied that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110217/police-slut-comment/20110217/?hub=OttawaHome
A Toronto police officer who told a gathering of university students that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts" has issued an apology.
Mark Pugash, director of communications for the Toronto Police Service, said the officer would send a written letter of apology to faculty and students at York University for inappropriate comments made at the university's Osgoode Hall Law School.
The officer in question sent a written apology to the school later on Thursday.
Pugash said the officer had also been disciplined internally.
The comments were reportedly made during a campus safety meeting on Jan. 24.
Speaking as a brother, a husband and a father of daughters, the boy that made that comment has no business being allowed out on his own, let alone wearing a badge.
I don't care if a woman is a professional crack whore, a rape victim deserves your utmost sympathy, respect and compassion. You treat both the victims and the topic at large as if God and Mary Magdalene were personally going to hold you accountable for absolutely everything.
If you can't understand that, you have no business being in mixed company, let alone mine. I hope to God you don't share a uniform with anyone in my family.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
...but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Homeland security, of course! The article says, "In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics." Man, how could you make that argument with a straight face?
Anyone interested in "cop arrests guy with camera even though no law was broken" stories should check out Carlos Miller's blog.
What should be mentioned is that some states have prosecuted individuals for taping police, using wiretapping laws. This is a problem all over the country.
Police don't like being taped. Frankly, that's your best way of exonerating yourself during an altercation. And if you do... if you make the police look bad... that's when you have to worry about being prosecuted under wiretapping laws.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Um - didn't they cover this at the keynote - all the pictures you take, videos, etc, all sent to the cloud, and down to the rest of your devices... You take video, then remove file from your device. show camera roll to officer, show that there is nothing there. Get home, and onto youtube/twitter... This isn't going to get any harder for people to do.
That "Don't dress like a slut" comment came right out of the bad old days of rape legal defense. Defense attorneys used to work two arguments:
1. Every woman consents to be raped. "You cannot thread a moving needle," was quoted in every courtroom, and to some extent still is. She wouldn't have been raped if she had really objected to it. She wasn't resisting. If it really was so terrible, a good woman would have made him kill her first.
2. Even if she didn't consent to be raped, she provoked it. She came on to him. She dressed slutty. She was drinking, so she was looking for it. She asked for it, she got it, she deserved it. He's the real victim here. She's one of those bad women who prey on men's natural weakness. Look at what her accusation is doing to his good family...
Does dressing like a slut mean an unvoiced consent to sexual advances? No. Does it mean someone dressed like a slut deserved getting raped? No. Does being female absolve you of all consequences? No.
Yup, you're trying to sound reasonable, but there's that second argument again. There are consequences to dressing sexy, and she's responsible for them. Mess with the bull and you'll get the horn. Some women are sluts, some women dress like sluts, some women are asking for it...
Do you really think how a woman is dressed matters to a rapist? "Oh, well that's a tasteful and professional look from Donna Karan, so clearly this woman is off-limits to me..." You don't have to be dressed slutty to get raped. You just have to be weaker than your attacker.
Of course, what really worries me is this mind-set you've got going that a woman shouldn't be absolved for provoking a rape. "Well, she turned him on, so she got what was coming to her." Follow that train of thought long enough, and you end up dressing the women in burkas -- and it's still not enough.
Come on now, 'fess up a little. Time for some soul-searching maybe. When you see a hot woman, and you know you can't have her, it makes you just a little bit frustrated, and maybe a little bit angry, doesn't it?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I can't tell you what a relief it is to know that not only do we not share a uniform, we don't even share a flag. Thanks for the post.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I'm not a cop, but you bring up a good point about undercover cops.
Perhaps one could further argue that the recording of a police officer's identity and real time activity could be used in carrying out misdeeds elsewhere in the area, i.e. like counting cops like counting cards in blackjack.
Actually the public has the exact same power. It is just a difference of consequences when caught.
Likely because certain groups have been known to edit and release said video out of context as a deliberate act to discredit authority.
People openly carry large amounts of cash all the time, and yes, they still happily send muggers there to jail without blaming the victim.
Maybe this has something to do with the basic common decency we watched them demonstrate so impressively lately...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
It's part of the job. If they don't fucking like it, they can go apply for a security position at the mall.
So what about the male versions?
OK, sorry, I get it. You poor dude. She got sole custody, didn't she? Can I have the talking stick now? Is it time for the sweat lodge yet? How's that "Ladie's Night" lawsuit going?
Brotherhood is powerful, dude. You're in a safe place here. We understand.
Bitches, man.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Then all politicians are bad for making those laws, and all people are bad for voting in those politicians.
Yes, this would be the logical corollary. Though I am not much for Freud usually, in his Civilization and Its Discontents, he argued that it is possible for society itself to become dysfunctional enough to be considered psychotic in its own right. An individual has no real option at that point to be sane. They can either be sane in and of themselves and be completely out of sync with everything around them or they can be in tune with the consensual reality and be insane in and of themselves.
I rather think we have reached (and surpassed) that point. Certainly we have reached a point where people often find it impossible to be both moral and lawful, even though many people still equate these two qualities. None of the choices from that point are good. But I think we have had many police decide to not continue being enablers and leave the profession. This has largely left us with people in 'law enforcement' who are not aware of the contradiction or do not care. That is not a good outcome, either.
All tax-payers are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws, and tax-payers will be charged with financing those cops. Anyone who finances the enforcement of an unjust law is a bad person. Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning?
No, I don't.
This is why the Founders insisted on a limited government of explicitly delegated powers with deliberate inefficiencies ("checks and balances") and state/local control of the armed forces. They were, not, however, perfect. They could not, for instance, conceive of Americans ever being stupid enough to give the Feds control of a standing army (read, e.g. Madison in "The Federalist Papers") and disband the militias. [Sane] people don't believe in limited government because government is not useful--- it certainly can be--- but rather because it is a foregone conclusion that any government shall become corrupt given enough time and at least a limited one does less damage when it goes bad.
And why aren't the cops recording their own encounters so that they can release their version of the story if it conflicts with your hypothetical out of context video?
#lulzsecwon
If they don't sooner or later the public will get organised and there will be "National Record Cops in Public Day" where everyone records the police so that they get the idea. Nothing like safety in numbers.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
Is there a justification for subduing someone and then charging them with "resisting arrest" only? In that circumstance, IMHO, the police are just looking for a reason -- and that's wrong."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
No, that's not what he "implied". You quoted what he said:
When women expose primary or secondary sexual characteristics to men, some of the men are going to lack the impulse control to keep themselves from raping the women. It doesn't imply anything about who "deserves" what, it is not a moral judgment, it's just an observation about biology. If that observation is demeaning to anybody, it's demeaning to men.
Our society gives men and women a lot of freedoms, in the sense of not making things illegal. For example, in some places, you can drive without a seat belt. You can smoke. You can have sex without a condom. You can own a gun. And you can now expose parts of your body to the public that used to land you in jail, and unmarried women and men can get together privately late at night. The fact that you can do those things and that you have those freedoms doesn't mean that it is wise to take advantage of them or that society will go out of its way to make your conduct safe.
None of that means that society doesn't punish the guilty or try to care for you afterwards. If you leave your bike unlocked and it gets stolen, the thief is still a criminal in the eyes of the law. If you have wild unprotected sex and catch HIV, health insurance will still cover you. And if you're a woman and run scantily clad through a group of thugs or if you go home with someone you picked up at a bar and got to see more than his etchings, police will still try to find the rapists and bring them to judgment. Nevertheless, we can tell all these people that their behavior was stupid.
Your misrepresentations and demagoguery aren't going to make your daughters any safer. And with all your political correctness and self-righteous indignation, if your daughters "dressed like sluts", you'd give them an earful because you know full well that doing so is a bad idea.
What arguments defense attorneys use to get their sleazy clients off the hook is totally irrelevant. What matters is that it is a reasonable inference that women who dress scantily are at higher risk of getting raped.
Yes. And so do you: men are sexually aroused by visible sexual characteristics (or, in some cases, fetishes). Take the visual stimulus away and you get less arousal, and likely less rape.
I'm not the GP poster, but personally I have no interest in women at all. But as a gay man, I have absolutely no trouble understanding that if I don't want to get beat up or raped, I have to dress appropriately depending on circumstances and stay out of some situations. There are also places that it isn't sensible for me to go as a white male or a wimpy geek. Getting upset about that is about as sensible as getting upset about the existence of gravity. That realization has nothing to do with the morality or legality of such attacks, nor should it have any bearing on legal proceedings.
When guys start objecting to ladies night, it really makes them look like assholes.
No other way to put it.
1 million CCTV cameras are installed in UK to safeguard public rights http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8159141.stm
i'm not man... i am officer RIVIERI.
Yes, I hear Whitey is having a hard time renewing his life insurance policy...
Loading...
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
I'm sorry, but unless you're only worried about the sensitivity of white women in their late 40's in north east Wyoming, most people in the south, California, New York/New Jersey, Maryland/DC, Florida - think things are worse than they generally are in any case. Some people keep trying to say that allowing the videotaping would be detrimental to the police. The problem with that argument is that you already can video tape them in just about every public arena, and these nightmare scenarios don't seem to be happening. They do seem to be helping people being brutalized by the police though. Hell, video has exonerated many police officers as well (the car cams have probably dropped abuse reports 10 fold since motorists can't lie about what happened at a traffic stop either.)
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
- First, who cares if the public thinks it is harsh, what matters is what a court things. Second, again, most of the populations of major metropolitan areas think the cops all act like the ones in "Do the right thing" anyhow.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way
- Tough shit. Really. You want the power of life and death over people, you'll have to live with the fear of the media.
much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Personally, I think the more monitored the police are, the more you will weed out corruption (or drive it into smaller areas) and EVENTUALLY create trust between the public and its public servants; however, that'll never happen because cops cover for cops pretty much no matter what. A perfect example - an off duty cop in Charleston, SC (Mt. Pleasant to be specific) was inebriated and hauling ass down a road (Rifle range road) after a soccer game (he was on our team) and then about 12 beers in the park afterwards - he hit someone in the traffic circle on that road and then turned on his lights and hauled ass away. He called his 'buddies in blue' and (I forget exactly what they did) they set it up so that he was logged as responding to a call someplace 30 miles away in order to excuse the accident. I know this because the racist as*hole told me all about it the next week somehow proud about it.
Loading...
Yeah, I read that blog a while bag. Sad.
Loading...
They don't have any. The absolute best excuse they can come up with is that they shouldn't be "second guessed" because this will cause them to hesitate in the course of their duties, which of course will get people killed. Nevermind the fact that this supposed to be a country where we are governed by consent, and therefore should have at least some influence and oversight over how the laws of our nation are enforced. Not total control, mind you, that's where the "representative" part comes in, but we can and definitely should have a say in how law enforcement procedures are designed and implemented.
The problem is, and has been for a long time, that we have no influence at all. This is what allows SWAT teams to perform no-knock raids all over the country in ever increasing numbers over minor drug offenses sometimes based on spurious "tips" from literal crackhead informants. Watching someone's house raided, their pets literally slain by automatic weapons fire, their families (including children) terrorized as assault weapons are pointed at them and obscenities are screamed at them, over what turns out to be a misdemeanor paraphernalia possession (this did in fact happen) is one of the more nauseating things I've ever had the displeasure of seeing.
But we can expect more and more and more until we grow a backbone and put the police back in their place. There are very few peace keepers anymore. Now, just as the Afghanis, we have become the targets of LEO kill/capture missions. We are literally treated like terrorists, save being shipped off to Gitmo.
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
Loading...
The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.
You nailed it on the head there.
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
That's circular reasoning. "I'm arresting you because you resisted arrest."
If there's no underlying reason for an arrest, there's no reason for the police to arrest the person and, hence, any force used on the arrestee is just assault and not justified by the claim of "resisting arrest." If someone attacks the police, it's assault and they should be charged accordingly. If someone is being arrested or detained for a valid reason, then that person should be charged with whatever crime they are alleged to have committed. However, if the *only* charge is resisting arrest, there (apparently) is no reason for the police to arrest this person in the first place. And that's either assault or false arrest/unlawful imprisonment. In that circumstance it's a trumped up charge.
Often [Citation needed] this happens when someone mouths off to a police officer -- which, while it is in poor taste and often deleterious to your health, is not a crime as long as you're not threatening harm in some way. For example, if I tell a police officer "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny," whether or not it's true, it's not a crime. A handsome and well dressed police officer might have a case for libel if others heard me, or if my statements were published in the media. However, that's a *civil* matter and should not result in the officer over-stepping his or her authority by detaining or arresting me for "resisting arrest."
Please provide a circumstance where this reasoning does not hold.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
We need a reasonable way to separate "sound advice to reduce your chances of being victimized" with "if you don't do this, it's your fault."
If the officer had said, "Provocative clothing can draw unwanted attention," no one would have batted an eye. t2t10 has a point. That is precisely the advice I give my daughters.
When they give you a uniform -- any uniform -- they explicitly tell you "You watch your mouth when you're wearing this." I even got that speech when they gave me a fast-food uniform as a 16-year-old boy.
Because all people are equal in the eyes of the Law, certain words have no business coming out of an officer's mouth. Words that imply some people are "less than," words like bitch, slut, skank, ho, cracker, spic, kike, gook, coon and their modern variants have no business being spoken under the color of authority.
The word slut literally means "a woman unworthy of respect because of her sexual behavior" and for an officer of the law to be callous enough to use that word in a discussion of rape shows that he is incapable of providing justice to all women. When it comes to rape victims, there are no women unworthy of respect.
Beyond the uniform though, there's a basic issue of manhood here. When I turned 17 and began to put on some grown-up muscle and the last little bit of adolescent squeak left my voice -- not to mention the rough background I come from -- women began to be afraid of me. I don't mean they'd run screaming like I was Jason Voorhees, but if I was out ofter dark, an it was just me and some woman alone at the ATM, or in the laundromat, or a parking garage, they'd get a little tense, a little nervous, they'd walk a little faster...
I didn't like it. I didn't understand it at first because I'm a little thick about things like this, but it came to me.
"Because it's not just you, moron. OK, maybe because of the rough way you look, it's especially you, but all men make women a little nervous when they're alone with a stranger. We're generally twice their size. We carry the brute strength to casually beat them down. This has not always turned out well for them in the past."
I grew up a little when I understood that. I learned to treat women I didn't know with a certain deference, like the best men I grew up with did. Around women I did not know, harsh language dropped entirely out of my speech. I began to use words like "please," "thank you" and "ma'am." A sincere genuine "ma'am" does wonders to signal good intent, that I am trying to live up to our best rules and traditions, even if it means reaching back to out-of-date social conventions. Even younger women who still think it's a little goofy to hear appreciate it.
Because I am a grown man possessing raw physical power, the word "slut" -- which means women undeserving of my respect -- does not belong in my vocabulary. I may tell you I do not believe a woman has carried herself in a dignified fashion. I may tell you I believe an outfit leaves too little to the imagination. Grown men do not use words like "slut" or "whore."
Punks do. And that punk in Toronto has no business wearing a uniform or carrying a badge.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I'm sorry, I thought you were saying something else. You can't be arrested for resisting arrest when there's no original charge. Now, the police can screw you over by lying, but that's true of any situation.
Loading...
I grew up on Navy bases during the Vietnam war. We expected 18-year-old kids to stand up to gunfire. And they did. But since we're talking civilian cops, let me tell you a civilian story.
When I was in college, I got ran through the training they hold for volunteer firefighters in my state. At the end of the week, they held a little dinner/get together. It was a small community, everyone knew everyone.
There was a table where the grizzled old men sat, and the guy who was showing me the ropes clued me in on the stories. That guy got his ear burned off saving a kid. That one traded that finger for some woman. The guy with burn scars over his entire left arm? That was a bad day, but they got everybody out.
They also had a couple of chairs out for their friends who couldn't make it on account of being dead.
No, I really don't think it's too much to ask of an officer of the law to speak in a professional tone when he's in uniform and talking to a group of law students. I expect one of the city's finest to express himself without using words like bitch, slut and whore.
I really don't think we're setting that bar too high.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
There should be legislation to record police actions *when attending a job*. Sports stars are recorded when "working", actors, judges and lawyers, and police are recorded for COPS etc. So why not as a matter of course? In fact it seems counter-intuitive that they aren't. Not while they're patrolling, just when they attend a job.
Even if it's just audio from a lapel mic, I'm sure it would ease people's minds and help prevent misconduct. People would know that what they say is being recorded, the officer is recorded, all words spoken will be on record. And its technologically pretty easy.
Honestly the reactions so many are posting here are so odd to me. It seems noone has yet realized the different kinds of "cops" there are. I married into a "cop" family and every officer in that family I have talked to has no problem with people recording them... of course these are officers employees by the state, Texas DPS and Rangers, but any city officers (or basically any non-state officers) all hate the idea. When you really get to know the "cops" you find a dramatic line (in my experience) between state and city officers, and the city ones are the ones who will trample your life and not care about the people they are meant to protect. The real surprise I had was finding most state officers know how the city cops act and hate it too and do what they can on the job to limit it but, of course, are limited by jurisdiction and not knowing when something like that is happening at the moment, only after the fact like the rest of us.
>but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have ...do they need to sit there and strat scrolling through a persons countless apps to see if there is one that will record them, THEN decide to arrest them....I really dont understand... O_O
Why, they all come with recording apps that you can not delete, inherent to the phone itself, unless the people asking the cops to take a look at the apps, do not own iphones themselves....I do not understand the comment made to check the phone for apps, why