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
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."
Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they?
They have complete control over those videos (included if and when they get "lost"). They don't have control over phone cameras.
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!
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
Really, what they're afraid of is evidence of their wrongdoing being used against them.
Think the Rodney King incident. The police were acquitted, though it seems to most that they should have been convicted.
Having their actions recorded by citizens takes some of the power away from the police and puts it in the hands of the citizens -- and police don't like giving up power. THAT is what they're afraid of.
They might claim that they're afraid of retaliation by gangs or something else, but that's not the real reason they don't like being recorded. They don't like being recorded because nobody likes being recorded when these recordings might be used against them later.
...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]
A better example is the Robert Dziekaski Taser incident, where the cops tasered someone repeatidly for no reason and killed him. Lied about it. Confiscated the evidence to protect themselves. Only that video going public is what finally caused something to be done, because it so enraged the public that the government had no choice but to call an inquiry.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
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.
That's why I use a BlackBerry. As soon as Apple or Google come out with a qwerty keyboard and equivalent security, I'll happily switch.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
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?...
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."
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."
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."
Since you mention it, ladies night is bullshit.
They get free admission and cheaper drinks because they have a hole instead of a pole? That's pretty much the kind of unfair treatment that feminists have been crusading against for a generation, but the one time it works out in their favor they have nothing to say...
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
I doubt you would accept any argument or proof showing all police officers are rights violating abusers of innocents. You, like a lot of people on this thread assume all police officers are corrupt liars and then base your comments from that starting point.
Not all police officers, but enough of them that the public has reason to want protection for themselves. Funny how the cops' cameras always seem to malfunction when someone claims that they were a victim of police brutality or other abuse. Suddenly they can't retrieve the video from the car's camera. If they can't even keep their damn cameras working properly, they should be thanking us for providing that service for them with our own cameras. If they wish to counter our video evidence, perhaps they should fix their equipment so that they can present their own evidence. I'd rather see both sides in court. The more evidence we can look at, the better.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have nothing against anyone recording anything they want. I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with recording anything in that takes place in public. However, I do have a problem when people use unsupported accusations and anecdotal evidence to brand a large group of people as corrupt or dishonest. We tend to use the extremes on both sides of any argument to make a point while disregarding the large number of balanced opinions that actually represent the true will of the majority.
The extremes are often the issue though. The fact that police abuse is known to occur, in extreme cases, is exactly the reason why we need the ability to record the police. Maybe 99% of police interactions are above-board and in accordance with the law. When they aren't, though, the victims need to have the ability to defend themselves.
Given the apparent lack of training and knowledge of the law that has been displayed time and time again by police officers who attempt to prevent recording by citizens, or who abuse those citizens doing the recording, or who try to destroy the recordings, it's quite obvious that we have good reason to need the protection of recordings. We've seen similar training issues regarding laws in other areas, such as armed civilians, bicycle riders, etc. If the law is too difficult for the police to know and understand, how the hell is the public supposed to be accountable for knowing and understanding the law?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer