French Court Orders ISP To Block Police Misconduct Website

Freddybear writes "A French court has ordered ISPs to block access to Copwatch Nord Paris I-D-F, a website designed to allow civilians to post videos of alleged police misconduct. French police unions applauded the decision. Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'"

Comments

French justice?

[tftp]

this site being a threat to the integrity of the police

I would say that something else, and not a Web site, is a threat to the integrity of the police.

Re:French justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

The police are a threat to the integrity of the police.

Oh sure. its only a few bad cops who ruin their image for them all. but still. i don't recall any of those supposedly 'good' cops busting their buddies lately for any of the crap they pull. and worst comes to worst... they just get a paid vacation. When was the last time you saw a cop get sent to jail like us regular people.

That's right. Never.

Re:French justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah police brutality, but you can't hope to stop that just limit the coverage.

Re:French justice?

[aevan]

http://www.google.com/search?q=policeman+jailed&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=nws

so...today.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Re:French justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, read the facts.

Re:French justice?

[spire3661]

Thats the crux right there. We have all seen incidents where 5 officers are standing around while 2 of them beat someone to death. When was the last time we saw a cop abusing his authority and being summarily arrested by the other officers on scene?

Re:French justice?

[SeeSp0tRun]

Much to the dismay of Slashdot, there are many good cops out there. Unfortunately, like anything else, there are plenty of bad ones as well. As is life...
That being said, in this case, the only ones threatening the integrity of the police, are the police.

Re:French justice?

[Maxo-Texas]

You know.. now that they've blocked this site, there is no way the videos will ever be posted on the internet where people can see them. ;-)

hehehe

Re:French justice?

[digitalsolo]

I have quite a few friends that are cops, and I agree with your statement.

That said, even the good cops I know get let off of speeding tickets and other such preferential treatment by their fellow officers. That behavior is still unacceptable.

I have the same issue with the behavior of police when another officer is killed. Why exactly do they treat the solving and, especially, prosecution, of that crime any differently than if a member of my family is killed? The same laws are broken, and legality trumps emotion.

Wrong thing to do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Another example of the government over stepping it's bounds.

Re:Wrong thing to do.

[Opportunist]

What did you expect from li'l Napoleon and his regime?

FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integrity"

[Sooner Boomer]

"this site being a threat to the integrity of the police..."
No, I think the actions of the police threaten their own integrity. A case of "you can't handle the truth...".

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

This site was giving full names and adresses of Police officers, this is why it was closed.

Re:Privacy

[betterunixthanunix]

So being a police officer is equivalent to being a CIA agent now? Nobody knows who you are or where you live?

Re:Privacy

[shutdown -p now]

It's not illegal to know the address of someone, but it's illegal to aggregate it in a database where anyone can easily look it up, and make it public. Not any different from privacy violations by Facebook.

(the above, of course, applies to specific European countries with strong privacy protections, and not to US)

wrong wrong wrong

[worldthinker]

What is a threat to the integrity of the police IS the misconduct that has been documented by citizens. The antidote is sunshine in the form of accountability provided by these documents.

Re:wrong wrong wrong

[symes]

The problem here is that a video does not neccessarily accurately document misconduct. Classic example might be police arresting a violent out of control offender who resists. The video would probably not capture the offense, just the end point where officers are physically restraining the perpetrator. It is not difficult to edit some footage to make it look like the police were behaving unreasonably. Should the full facts be known casual observers might come to an entirely different conclusion. Instead they'll get edited footage from someone who might have an undeclared agenda. Add in the sites promulgation of officers personal information and you have a volatile mix. The truth is that there are some pretty nasty people out there who may or may not be carrying a weapon and the only option for police is physical restraint.

Re:wrong wrong wrong

[riondluz]

"Should the full facts be known casual observers might come to an entirely different conclusion."

A Neurotypically correct statement, but falling short in many ways.
I fully get how pursuit and physical contact affects reactions; of police or anyone.
But the violence of the offender should not be used to justify a violent reaction on the part of authority; specially when they out-number in strength or weapons.
It's supposedly why they're called 'professionals'.

What you see in a clip is what you get. It speaks for itself. Anyone can generally tell if its over the top, excessive, fundamentally sick.
(what usually happens after the clip is far worse)

Whether its taking down a 'perp', pepper-spraying someone while your partner holds open their eyes, or calmly wasting a crowd of people who pose no immediate threat.... it's offensive and flat out wrong.
The people who assume they're entitled to do so need to be reminded that they are not.

I've worked on Adult in-patient units; i know what crazy can do and what restraint means. It does not mean being vindictive or brutally cruel.

Words matter

[femto]

It's bad for the integrity of policing. Good for the integrity of the police.

Re:Words matter

[TechLA]

The site wasn't really for the purpose the summary and article make it sound like. It mainly collected personal information, addresses and even social networking accounts of police officers. Europe takes privacy of private persons much more seriously than US, and the information was even used for making threats.

The police had said they were particularly concerned about portions of the site showing identifiable photos of police officers, along with personal data â" including some cases in which officers are said to express far-right sympathies on social networks. The initial complaint against the site was filed by a Paris police officer who said he had received a bullet in his mailbox after his picture had appeared on the site. He was joined by other officers.

I'm all for making police actions more transparent, but single police officers should have some privacy regarding their personal life too.

Re:Words matter

[LifesABeach]

Why only show law enforcement goofs, sometimes the bad guys do some pretty stupid stuff also.

Re:Words matter

[Opportunist]

And why were policemen exposed on this webpage? Just for being policemen?

Re:Words matter

[TubeSteak]

I'm all for making police actions more transparent, but single police officers should have some privacy regarding their personal life too.

The French must have a different idea of what it means to be a public servant than we do.
How is the contesnts of this website any different than someone compiling the same information and releasing it in print?

Re:Words matter

[mikael_j]

My experience, from Sweden, is that some people are dicks. That's about it.

We have a couple of local cops who are hated by lots of people in their twenties for reasons that seem to mostly revolve around those particular cops being part of the local police department's "youth group" that focuses both on solving crimes committed by teenagers but also keeping an eye on what goes on in local parks in the summer and such things. I know that for a while there was a website that posted a bunch of personal information about one of them.

So basically, some people feel that they are justified in being dicks if the cops ruin their (illegal) fun. I myself have met these particular police officers a few times late at night, the worst that I've ever been subjected to was a "please don't drink beer in public south of that bridge, local ordinances say you can't drink in public south of there"...

Re:Words matter

[Dark Lord of Ohio]

My experience, from Sweden, is that some people are dicks. That's about it.

We have a couple of local cops who are hated by lots of people in their twenties for reasons that seem to mostly revolve around those particular cops being part of the local police department's "youth group" that focuses both on solving crimes committed by teenagers but also keeping an eye on what goes on in local parks in the summer and such things. I know that for a while there was a website that posted a bunch of personal information about one of them.

So basically, some people feel that they are justified in being dicks if the cops ruin their (illegal) fun. I myself have met these particular police officers a few times late at night, the worst that I've ever been subjected to was a "please don't drink beer in public south of that bridge, local ordinances say you can't drink in public south of there"...

Man... I always thought that you CAN'T drink any booze in public in Sweden,...it is limited to only "south" direction of places? how about public north of that bridge?About people being dicks, you're right. Police is for ENFORCING law, thats their job, some people bake bread, others are lawyers and others just don't care and break the rules. And that is where police come in.

Re:Words matter

[mikael_j]

Man... I always thought that you CAN'T drink any booze in public in Sweden,...it is limited to only "south" direction of places? how about public north of that bridge?

Well, in this particular city there's also a street in the southern part of the city that you can't drink north of. There's a more or less rectangular area that covers the most central parts of the city where you can't drink in public, outside of that area it's ok. The particular bridge I mentioned happens to be on the northern edge of a park so a lot of people end up getting told to go north of the bridge if they want to drink. And apparently a lot of people somehow use this as a justification for thinking the police are assholes for enforcing this (even though technically anyone caught drinking within this area should be fined).

Re:Words matter

[turbidostato]

"How is the contesnts of this website any different than someone compiling the same information and releasing it in print?"

They are not. That's why it would be prosecuted in any case under European privacy laws.

Re:Words matter

[gl4ss]

so.. they're in a group that actively engages youth, "i'm police officer balbablab you can come to talk me about blablabal", in cases like that the expection of privacy really goes out of the window, the smaller the city the more it goes out of the window(and the more local power they have).

but if there's _any_ group of persons who should expect less privacy than the rest, it should be the cops and court system officials. why? because they decide about the privacy of the rest and have special rights about invading the privacy of others. the cops don't need to even trump up charges in most of europe to do a house search - private parties should at least be able to keep tabs on who does those searches. because that's the only way to know when they consistently act different than what the local parliaments law deciding bodies want them to.

Re:Words matter

[Dark Lord of Ohio]

To be honest, I thought you missed some part, but now I get the idea :) Thanks for explanation! And give me a tip which bridge it is, TIA.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

And sometimes those dicks have badges. Sometimes the badges turn them into dicks. What is your point?

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed - remember the Stanford Prison Experiment - in a social context, if you expect something to be in a personality it will exhibit itself - no question why this is over hyped garbage - it's manipulation by the media.

Re:Words matter

[Kjella]

but if there's _any_ group of persons who should expect less privacy than the rest, it should be the cops and court system officials.

I don't think there should be any expectation of privacy for an officer on duty, anything you do wearing the uniform should be up for scrutiny. But that is their day job, when they take off the uniform and go home I think they should have the same protections as everyone else. In fact, it's very few other occupations that so often lead to harassment, vandalization or outright threats against yourself or our family. By enforcing the law you're attracting the anger of people that have very little problem breaking the law.

I'm not talking primarily about the big stuff, like when the mafia or drug lords go to more or less outright war against the police, judges and juries. But more like "There's lives the asshole who caught me shoplifting, let's egg his car and stab the tires" kind of thing. I suppose in a small town everybody would know anyway, but in the city it wouldn't normally be that easy. Exposing their private lives is far more likely to give people the means for intimidation to prevent them doing their jobs or leave the force than to keep them honest.

I mean if you were doing any serious coverup for somebody, would you have them listed as your friend on a social networking site? It'd be a pretty blatant conflict of interest, if anything you'd try to it indirectly so your name doesn't come up. And your home address, yeah uh huh so check that you're not covering for your neighbors right? Oh please, that's got almost zero legitimate uses and plenty bad ones. It's far more likely to be used in a "we know where you live and everybody you care about" kind of way.

Re:Words matter

[Adhemar]

It’s perfectly possible that the website disclosed personal information, addresses, social network details and political affiliations of the police officers. And it’s understandable that the police say they are particularly concerned about those portions. I haven’t seen the site.

But I have read the judgment. And the justification of the website ban does not mention police officer’s personal information as a reason for the ban. Instead, the Court explains that it objects to certain language on the website, and the Court gives a few examples:

“Nous n’hésiterons pas à user de termes sévères à l’égard de la Police et de la Gendarmerie, car nous considérons ces institutions comme la fosse commune de l’humanité, le charnier de l’évolution, la mise à mort quotidienne de la déontologie et de l’éthique. Nous serons sans equivoque”
“We will not hesitate to use harsh terms down on Police and Gendarmerie, because we consider these institutions as the common grave of mankind, the mass grave of evolution, killing daily Conduct and ethics. We will be clear”

“Un laboratoire ou CRS [compagnie républicaine de sécurité] et PAF [police aux frontières] s’entraînent à chasser le migrant, à l’humilier, à le torturer psychologiquement. Calais possède sans doute la PAF la plus violente de France”
“A laboratory or Republic’s Security Company and the Border Police are trained in hunting downs migrants, in humiliating, in torturing them psychologically. [The town of] Calais has probably the most violent border police of France”

The Court considers that such language falls under the description

“toute expression outrageante, termes de mépris ou invective qui ne renferme l’imputation d’aucun fait”
“any offensive expression, contemptuous term or invective [violent denunciation] that does not reflect the imputation [attribution of a fault] of any fact”

with respect to the police, and is as such forbidden under a legal exception to the free speech/free press principle.

Re:Words matter

[Hentes]

I understand why the photos has to be removed or the faces in them blurred out, but what's the problem with posting data THEY made publicly available on Facebook?

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a 'bad cop' does not revoke your right to privacy, just like being a child pornographer, a slashdot reader or a video gamer does not.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is processing of personal data?

See 95/46/EC (articles 6 and 7, in particular 6b,c,e and 7a,e; article 2 for definitions).

Re:Words matter

[gl4ss]

being a police officer isn't a day job.
being a rent-a-cop mall security guard. yes, that would qualify as a day job - they got no special rights after hours. police officers do.

of course that would need them to throw some expectancies out of the window the day they take the job and would need a reform in the judical system in general, geared towards more transparency and less personal choices by cops on the street - which is actually needed sorely, as you can't even read from the law books now what sanctions you will get if you do some illegal specific thing, for it depends entirely on the personal judgement of the cop who happens to be around to enforce what he wants.

anyhow, the french might just as well ban google as well.

Re:Words matter

[Hentes]

True, but isn't the sharing of those information publicly counts as implicit consent?

Re:Words matter

[xaxa]

Only for Facebook to hold and process the information, not anyone else.

(A private individual's address book excepted.)

Re:Words matter

[TechLA]

Police officers don't have special rights after hours, not at least here. And since France is another EU country, I think it's somewhat similar. They may know how to handle situations better and people might assume so if they know he is a police officer, but legally speaking there's no special rights.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's sort of important to include in an article about it... I'm a cop's kid and few things piss me off more than guys who don't deserve to wear the badge taking advantage of their uniform (which seems to be happening increasingly more often anymore, even my old man says maybe 10% of the department deserves to be there) but even a bad camera angle can make a good cop look bad.

There was on situation where some reporter caught a bunch of cops who looked like they were beating the crap out of an unarmed man. After the news station ripped the cops apart, some guys came forward with footage from other angles that showed the suspect had an uzi and was trying to use it. So yeah, the guy was lucky that they didn't just shoot him - better to be bruised than dead. Point being, if their names and contact information had been exposed, they probably would have been made miserable, even after it turned out they were in the right to use physical force.

I don't think crooked cops should be able to hide, but law enforcement is an ugly business that involves angering a LOT of people and vigilantism has a nasty habit of hurting innocent people in addition to guilty ones.

Re:Words matter

[Sperbels]

Some policemen enforce the law. And others enforce the law and get a kick out of it. The ones who get a kick out of it are very annoying. I once had a state trooper approach me (as if I was a hardened criminal) at a country convenience store and try to publicly humiliate me for illegal parking. The guy was about 3 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier than me and he laid the physical intimidation and invasion of personal space crap on me really thick. Okay...I'm a lanky underweight computer nerd with mannerisms like a bunny rabbit. Give me a break. Totally unnecessary.

Re:Words matter

[Hatta]

I'm all for making police actions more transparent, but single police officers should have some privacy regarding their personal life too.

Why? If you're afraid of the consequences if your neighbors find out what you do, maybe you should be doing something else. If the public is so outraged at cops, maybe they should fix their behavior instead of going into hiding.

Re:Words matter

[Hatta]

But that is their day job, when they take off the uniform and go home I think they should have the same protections as everyone else.

I agree. Except that the "same protections" should be none. I use mice for research in my work. If PETA wants to come set up camp on my sidewalk and protest, that's their right. If protestors want to follow a cop home and protest there, that's their right too.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like when he goes home, has an affair with some poor bastard's wife, and conspires with her to fake charges that the poor bastard molested her daughter? That's his private life, right, so he should be able to keep that private, right?

http://www.pitch.com/plog/archives/2011/07/25/lees-summit-agrees-to-pay-155-million-to-settle-wrongful-conviction-case

That poor bastard initially got 50 years before his conviction was thrown out. If you're in charge of enforcing or making laws, you should have no privacy at all. The public deserves to know what your true motivations are.

Re:Words matter

[fuzzybunny]

The problem is that, in France, there are serious cases of police misconduct that need to be reported, e.g. in responses to demonstrations, treatment of suspects, and handling of investigation evidence.

And at the same time, people are being dicks to police because they, well, are dicks.

The heart of the issue is that there's really not much of a middle ground anyone trusts - French police groups are terrified that dicks will be dicks, and the people who put their stock in sites like Copwatch IdF don't trust the police or government to adequately investigate and prosecute police misconduct.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

fully agreed that police should not be identified with personal details on the site. I assume most police forces have an easy way to identify police officers without having to know their name or anything (a number or something). That would be a way better way to identify wrongdoers on a site.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience, from Sweden, is that some people are dicks. That's about it.

We have a couple of local cops who are hated by lots of people in their twenties ...

Where I live, we have some local cops who shoot and kill people without provocation and are not charged for it, and who drive people in their trunks to remote areas for unofficial interrogations. So, yeah, like you say, some people are dicks.

Re:Words matter

[hrimhari]

So, besides being morally perfect, with perfect judgement of threats and zero emotion on duty, policemen also must not mind the revenge of those they put behind bars.

Not only that, but if the policeman in question decides to have a life other than his job (like marrying, having children...) his family also needs to fit those requirements.

Of course, a computer technician is exposed to the exact same kind of revenge threats a policeman is. But the computer technician isn't afraid of his neighbors, right mr. wimpy cop?

Piece of cake, why don't you apply?

Re:Words matter

[Hatta]

Present me with a government worth defending, and I will gladly join up.

Re:Words matter

[Ossifer]

Apparently north of that bridge is the start of the vodka belt. BrÃnnvin's fine up there, just keep your beer down south.

Re:Words matter

[hrimhari]

How about this: what kind of person applies to life-threatening jobs where customers are almost never satisfied, regardless of how he performs?

And what kind of conditions should be improved (or avoided degradation) on said jobs to attract "better" (or avoid attracting "worse") people?

Re:Words matter

[Hatta]

How about this: what kind of person applies to life-threatening jobs where customers are almost never satisfied, regardless of how he performs?

The real customers of the police aren't who you think they are. And they're very satisfied with the performance they've gotten.

And what kind of conditions should be improved (or avoided degradation) on said jobs to attract "better" (or avoid attracting "worse") people?

Make the police serve the interests of the people instead of protecting the elites and you'll see a huge shift in public perception of police, as well as an influx of people who actually want to do good, instead of just power tripping.

Re:Words matter

[Tacvek]

The French code of criminal procedure does not distinguish between on-duty and off duty judicial police officers. Indeed the only thing even remotely close is Article 59, which (under normal circumstances) limits searches and house visits to between 6 am and 9 pm.

It is possible that the non-codified laws or regulations limit them, but they appear to have all their rights and protections all the time.

Re:Words matter

[Anonymous Coward]

if they do no wrong they have nothing to hide....

Re:Words matter

[TranquilVoid]

This isn't relevant as no one is creating a name-and-shame website on 'youth misconduct' that corrupt police may use to illegally harass youth at their homes. If they were, I presume (perhaps naively) that the French courts would ban this also.

French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am no fan of censorship at all, the issue here is that this fFrench version of Copwatch was not so much about showing police abuse than collecting some cops personnal data. In some areas of France, being a cop is all the reason you need for being assaulted, and when a website lists your name and address... not good.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[cusco]

If so, there is probably a reason. People don't normally assault guys known to carry guns without a damn good reason.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there is almost definitely a reason, but those reasons may (I'm not French, so I don't know) normally be more related to some gangsta-type being afraid of having his crooked little operation uncovered, or revenge for arresting someone's buddy, rather than a vigilante "fixing" bent cops (which is what you seem to be implying). I'm all for uncovering crime commited by the police, but I don't see how publishing their private addresses helps with that.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

Some people (organized crime) don't need a reason.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so naive.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh they have one: they read "Mein Korampf" and learned it was their duty to assault those that haven't.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Police get a lot of flack just for being police; on top of that they deal with a lot of drunkards and junkies, as well as violent offenders in the course of their normal duties.

People don't normally assault other people - regardless of whether the other person is carrying a gun or not - but the Police spend a lot of time dealing with people that you or I wouldn't consider 'normal'. And those people do hold grudges.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[nausicaa]

Actually.. They do. Well, ok, to them, you being a cop might be that damn good reason. 1) Not all people think rationally all the time. Heck, most people won't, at least once. Add drugs to to that mix. 2) In certain areas, being a cop IS reason enough. Also, many of those cops have families. 3) Need I really add organized crime to this? Ok, there you go.

That being said, I'm all for accountability and transparency. It is, however, important to differentiate between information about transgressions and information used to assault/threaten.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course there is a reason. Some people want to do things that are illegal, the police are there to try and stop them/catch them so that they can be punished. Additionally, the police, also, are a necessary function to maintain the order needed to keep a society function, some people wish to see society to cease to function so that they can seize power (even if only over a small area).

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[betterunixthanunix]

Police get a lot of flack just for being police

Which is a sign that something is wrong with the law. The police are supposed to protect people by enforcing the law, and if that were the case, there would be wide support for the police. Unfortunately, most laws having nothing to do with protecting the majority of people -- drug laws, censorship laws, laws against wearing religious clothing, etc. The police also have a habit of attacking protesters, which adds little to their reputation. Throw in a little corruption, and it is not hard to see why someone would create this sort of website.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[betterunixthanunix]

Additionally, the police, also, are a necessary function to maintain the order needed to keep a society function

Too bad the majority of the laws enforced by the police have nothing to do with keeping society functioning. Societies do not break down because a woman is wearing a burkha or because someone snorts some cocaine. If the only thing the police did was to keep the public safe, by arrested people who pose an immediate threat, your argument would hold water.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hiding your face is an indicator that you're intending to commit a crime and do not wish to be identified.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not the job, or function, of the police to determine what is illegal. If you have a problem with what is, or is not, illegal, that is not a problem with the police (except insofar as you ignore the fact that it is illegal). Societies do not break down because a woman wears a burka. However, a society may break down because a large number of "women" wear a burka (quotes are there because how do you know that all of the people wearing burkas are women?). Certainly, all of the societies where a majority of women wear burkas appear to me to be broken (although the women wearing burkas appears to be a symptom, not a cause)--women are treated as having fewer rights than men, homosexuals are often summarily killed, freedom of speech is close to non-existent, etc.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, there is probably a reason. People don't normally assault guys known to carry guns without a damn good reason.

Without a damn good reason in their possibly insane opinion.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the police are supposed to protect the people and enforce laws. But a lot of people don't like police anyway, and I'm going to vote that it's probably people who think they're above the law.

Even in casual conversation with someone who just broke a law and was caught, you can pick this up. "I was only doing 7mph over and he pulled me over! What the hell! I was late for work and having a REALLY bad day but he still wrote me a ticket!" Tough shit, get over it.

Censorship laws? Link one. Police attacking protestors? Link one where the protestors didn't start attacking the police first. Laws against wearing religious clothing? What the hell? Show me ONE law in the US that prevents anyone from wearing an article of clothing that bears religious significance. And no, a bomb vest doesn't count.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Cocaine and many other hardcore drugs cause perfectly normal people to break down and become degenerates. Unprovoked violent assault, extreme mental instability, and so on. Degenerates have a negative net effect on the welfare and stability of a society. It pisses me the hell off that my tax dollars might end up in the hands of some lowlife coke head who's too snuffed up to go out and make a fucking living like I do, instead of ending up in the hands of a clean person who actually has a good use and a definite need for the money.

And seriously, where the fuck do you live where a woman can't wear a burkha? Now you're just making shit up. I see women in burkahs all the time.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Hatta]

In some areas of France, being a cop is all the reason you need for being assaulted

The solution to that is to earn a reputation for integrity. Not to go into hiding. If the people are so upset with government that cops are arbitrarily targeted, that's a symptom of a problem far deeper than a website distributing public information. A police force that is held in such extreme contempt by the people deserves to wither and die.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Youths in the banlieue perceive policy as their enemy, the force that confiscates their drugs, arrests them after they steal, etc. They grow up listening to rap songs claiming CRS, SS. What do you expect?

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps in your country... In France "having fun" is apparently a good enough reason for people to engage police officers with fireworks mortars; that's full frontal assault, so imagine what kinds of cowardly assaults the same people could come up with if they knew where cops live ;-/

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[cusco]

France is not in the US dipwad, and France **DOES** have laws about religious clothing in certain social contexts.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

>If so, there is probably a reason.
Correct. In some banlieues there is a heavily ingrained might-is-right mentality and the police stand in the way of that.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they are assaulted by people who break the law ? Doesn't it make sense ?
If a police force is held in such extreme contempt by drug dealers, I don't think they deserve to wither and die, don't you think so ?

I live in France. Anytime I hear people blame policemen, it is because they were doing their job.
"Why don't they chase the drug dealers ?" says the man who drove too fast on the streets.
"Why don't they chase the pedophiles ?" says the drug dealer.

At most there is a problem with some our laws and directives, such as the identity controls based on their skin colors. This is discrimination and it can easily be seen as harassment if those controls occur frequently. But it's what the cops are instructed to do, it's not their fault. The wide majority of cops have appropriate behaviors. The situation is different around violent zones but it's what happen when you send (not enough) young and inexperienced cops in such areas where order is not maintained and wanna-be-criminals rule.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't that make the statement correct then?

If you're not doing anything wrong

[jmcbain]

then you have nothing to be worried about. That's the usual post-9/11 line of thought, yet?

Re:If you're not doing anything wrong

[DarwinSurvivor]

While I agree with you that everyone deserves privacy, you also have to remember that a lot of cops work undercover and having their photos posted on a website with their name/address/etc puts them and their families in serious danger.

Re:If you're not doing anything wrong

[Myopic]

I think the police are worried about different opinions on what is "wrong". If an officer arrests you for shoplifting, and you think it's "wrong" of the officer to do that, and you go use this website to find his house and burn it down -- well then, tell me Mr McBain, does the officer have anything "to be worried about"?

The line between reasonable and unreasonable is in between the actions of recording the on-duty officers to make sure their on-duty actions are appropriate, versus recording the off-duty officers' private information for the purposes of off-duty retaliation for on-duty actions which most people -- but perhaps not everybody -- think are "right".

Re:If you're not doing anything wrong

[sabt-pestnu]

As you mention "undercover" specifically, I have to think you are thinking of criminals (prior to their harassing, that is) in particular doing the threatening. What makes you think that organized crime does not keep such information, specifically for the purposes of identifying cops that are working undercover?

What this decision is doing, is keeping the *random* crazies and disorganized criminals from harassing the police.

Re:If you're not doing anything wrong

[DarwinSurvivor]

Because organized crime doesn't HAVE that information until some jackass posts it on a website for all to see. Names of police officers are trivial to get (public record), photos are much more difficult. Especially since most cops that work undercover go to great length to not be photographed.

Yeah!

[Black Parrot]

'Cause the police can't maintain their integrity if they're not allowed to beat someone up now and then.

Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

How can the french people stand for this? I'd be ready to riot.

Re:Outrageous

[caius112]

Like many other people pointed it out, the site wasn't simply a collection of misconduct videos. It collected full names, addresses, telephone numbers, and facebook accounts of police officers that visitors then actually used to harass these said officers. I think the judge is fully justified in shutting it down, it probably broke quite a few privacy laws.

Re:Outrageous

[Opportunist]

Well, it takes a while for them to get stirred, but when they are ... losing your head isn't just a figure of speech then.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

The french have a long and consistent history of being fucking pussies who don't stand up for themselves.

No, the French seem willing to riot at the drop of a hat. Maybe you should watch some international news not Fox.

Re:Outrageous

[Stephan Schulz]

The french have a long and consistent history of being fucking pussies who don't stand up for themselves.

Lafayette called and said that you can say that again when you ever fought a modern war in which 70% of a generation became casualties, with about a quarter of these dead and another permanently maimed.

Re:Outrageous

[mjr167]

Don't they do that normally?

Re:Outrageous

[Larryish]

I want to know why the little misguided Frenchies decided to host it someplace easily accessible by French enforcement agencies.

If you don't want a seedbox in the same country as you, then you sure don't want a website criticizing your LEO or LEO hosted in your own country.

It is the GLOBAL Internet, people.

Fuck.

Stupid precedent

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The one's that damage the reputation of the police are the bad cops that don't deserve the uniform. As a unionized public servant I get pissed off when one of my coworkers mistreat citizens and we can't be even 10% as armful as a police officer. The union should welcome proof of officers misconduct since that bad officers make people mistrust the whole police force and makes everyone's job harder. Maybe they want worst riots in Paris than the ones in London in the near future to have something to brag about.

Poor understanding of English

[izomiac]

Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'

integrity /integrit/
Noun: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English. A site that shines light onto questionable behaviors promotes integrity, as you should be acting in private in such a way that you can defend your actions if they were to ever become public. It's an intrinsic quality. This is only a threat in newspeak, or if you think perception is reality.

I guess that statement might make sense if he were talking about the cohesion of the police, but that would imply far greater dissent within their ranks concerning what behaviors have been revealed...

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English.

Or rather, there is a problem with this English translation of something said in French.

The English word integrity is almost always used with the definition you gave. Its cognates in the Romance languages have several other uses, based on the meaning of "wholeness", or "staying in one piece". The English word entire is another cognate with a related meaning.

Besides translation, we have 2 problems here:

1. Cops who abuse their power are asshats.
2. People who violate the personal privacy of cops (whether for the lulz or vigilante justice) are also asshats.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[NotSanguine]

Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'

integrity /integrit/ Noun: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English. A site that shines light onto questionable behaviors promotes integrity, as you should be acting in private in such a way that you can defend your actions if they were to ever become public. It's an intrinsic quality. This is only a threat in newspeak, or if you think perception is reality. I guess that statement might make sense if he were talking about the cohesion of the police, but that would imply far greater dissent within their ranks concerning what behaviors have been revealed...

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary:
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[unitron]

Considering that Delage's statement was probably translated from the original French, it could well be that it was integrity in the sense of being whole and unbroken, i.e., unharmed. In other words, he may have meant physical security and safety of individual officers and their families.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[NotSanguine]

Just to clarify my point. I didn't mean to say that shutting down the website *actually* preserved the integrity of the French Police. I meant to say that, in this case, it's fairly clear that the meaning of integrity was more in line with:
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:
rather than:
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

As to whether or not the court decision was correct, it appears that there was more than just video of cops doing nasty and illegal things. Whether that more was actually acceptable grounds for limiting speech, I don't know. I don't have all the facts. I know that's never stopped anyone on here, but I'm going to play this one a little conservatively.

Have a nice day

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary:
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

And you need to learn to use a dictionary. It's not a multiple choice test with only one right answer, they are all valid definitions:

1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.
a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.

In any case, this was translated from a Foreign language so the word "integrity" was chosen by the translator. It's possible the word which should have been used was "safety", since the website was less about exposing police abuses and more about simply publishing private information about individual officers. While technically speaking "integrity" would also fulfill this definition, that's not how we commonly use it in everyday practice.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[izomiac]

Argh, quit being reasonable! I was about to make fun of you for not noticing I'd addressed that possibility in my original post that you quoted, even putting it in italics for emphasis.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Eunuchswear]

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English.

No, the article has a problem with it's translation from the original French to English:

The original says:

Les magistrats ont parfaitement analysé la situation -ce site portant atteinte à l’intégrité des policiers

He said "integrity (in the sense of wholeness, i.e. life and limb) of policemen" not "integrity of the police force".

Re:Poor understanding of English

[pairo]

How can you tell which of the two meanings they used? From what I see on http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/atteinte , it's more likely to be used with the figurative sense of intégrité.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Eunuchswear]

Context.

It's the "des policers" - "of policemen" that's the clue.

(Also the police union doesn't give a fuck about the institution of the police, that's not their job. They care about cops.)

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Eunuchswear]

(Also, he's a cop. Cops talk funny).

Re:Poor understanding of English

[pairo]

My point was, integrity (values/moral, figurative definition) of policemen works just as well as the literal one. If anything, integrity as being whole, seems to me would apply better to the police corps, not to an individual: intégrité, nom féminin Sens 1 Etat d'une chose qui n'a pas été altérée Chose means thing, and while you can apply this to a person, it just sounds weird. But, we're just splitting hairs here. :-P

Re:Poor understanding of English

[Eunuchswear]

Search for "atteinte a l'integrite" on google. You'll see quite a lot of the references are talking about "integrite physique". This is lawyer talk, and the kind of weird language loved by cops.

Re:Poor understanding of English

[NotSanguine]

Please see my follow up message. I clarify the point I was trying to make there. And yes, I did read all three definitions but decided to include that one to make my point.. Note that the OP only included definition 1..

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[TechLA]

They don't have a trouble if someone documents polices wrongful actions. They have a trouble with site that collects and lists police officers private home addresses, which lead them to receive threats via mail. The site also tried to show if police officers personal political opinion is right or left.

If there is anything to be learned from this site

[Anonymous Coward]

it's don't trust anyone with a crewcut.

Time to start mirroring it

[Saul Bash]

It's like they've never heard of the Streisand Effect.

A good eye-opener

[rapidreload]

As an Australian citizen, I've been aware of how fucked our Governement is with regards to our rights. But I've always kept in my mind that the USA are also pretty fucked as well (they might have a Constitution, but due process seems to be getting shafted as time goes on). So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things). But hey, the Europeans are smart cookies surely? Well, Italy is clearly fucked as well (seriously corrupt Government, not much to redeem there). And now we have another example of how the French are clearly fucked like everyone else.

There's basically nowhere in the world anymore when I can think that it's citizens aren't being fucked by their Government. Possible some Scandinavian countries, but it's only a matter of time. It's a good eye-opener to anyone who thinks life is better somewhere else - no, it's not. You're getting buttfucked no matter where you go.

No wonder people don't know what to do anymore. Our record levels of depression didn't just come out of thin air.

Re:A good eye-opener

[Nom du Keyboard]

So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things).

The problem in Britain is that all of the cameras are Government Cameras. Try taking pictures of almost anything anymore out in public with your own camera where there is no expectation of privacy and the law explicitly permits photography and count how long it takes Inspector Plod to come along and seize your camera anyway you little terrorist.

Re:A good eye-opener

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want somewhere where government isn't screwing its citizens, look at places with little to no government.

Re:A good eye-opener

[AK Marc]

And in those places, like good libertarian utopias, the violent gang leaders are screwing the citizens without enough government power to stop them (or conversely, the gangs take over the government then screw the citizens). Little government is always worse, and yet we have multiple parties claiming that's what they want (while most of those are also voting to raise spending - but not taxes, nope, taxes make big government, spending doesn't).

The US politics is broken beyond repair.

Re:A good eye-opener

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that's wrong.
The Police will stop you from recording in public if they believe that the person you're recording hasn't given permission, but otherwise they'll ignore you. They've got bigger things to worry about, and don't have the manpower to waste on some twat with a camera.

The vast majority of the cameras here in the UK are PRIVATELY owned. The law allows business premises to install CCTV as long as they register with the Information Commissioners office and put up signs in the window to let people know they have it. Because there's very little cost involved, most chain retailers adopt CCTV to help their civil recovery cases.
Having worked with some of these systems, I can tell you they're almost always offline, and most of the time they're not actually monitored. The quality is pretty awful to boot.
If (when) the retailer finds discarded packaging hidden in a corner of the store or under a shelf, they'll normally work backwards through the footage of the nearest camera to see if they can spot the person who dumped that packaging. If they can, they'll then keep stepping backwards to build up a picture of when that person entered the store, the route they took, and the items they took. The footage of that person then gets burned off and submitted as evidence to the police - who then do sod all with it from my experience.
Shoplifters are normally in the store for less than 3 minutes. They come in when it's busy, go straight for high ticket items that are easily concealed, cut them out of the packaging somewhere out of the line of sight of the staff, and walk back out again with the items, but without the packaging. The store only submits the footage relevant to the incident, and the CCTV system starts recording over older footage after about a month. The DPA doesn't allow the retailers to keep footage for longer than it's needed, so the only footage that ever gets burned off is the footage related to shoplifting events, and the odd fist fight.

The only time you really see Government owned cameras is Westminster, and on the top of traffic lights outside schools (well known accident blackspots). The Highways Agency has about a thousand under motorway bridges so that they can build traffic reports without having to fly helicopters, but they're useless for anything else.

Re:A good eye-opener

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy Mogadishu, conservatard.

Re:A good eye-opener

[redmid17]

Enjoy Mogadishu, conservatard.

Anarchy =/= Libertarian Paradise Government is required for the latter. The former has none.

Censorship doesn't work

[tokencode]

Regardless of how distasteful it is to release that information, trying to censor it will only further publicize the fact that the information exists. The french went about the problem completely wrong. They should have left the information out there and start tracking down prosecuting those who tried to use it in a negative way. I think it is simliar to insutrctions on making a bomb. It's all well and good until you try to do something illegal with the information.

To: the government of France

[fnj]

To: the government of France. The ISP's may not say it, so I will. PISS OFF.

Re:To: the government of France

[findoutmoretoday]

<quote>To: the government of France></quote>

It's a court's decision, not the government. Based on privacy laws, those come from the parliament.

Why the misleading summary?

[jezwel]

How do we tag a summary as misleading? Seems that entire premise behind why the site was blocked (providing police officer information including address and political affiliation) was dumped to promulgate 'videos of police brutality'.

It was inevitable this would generate a flame session, so now I'm wondering what the purpose of that was - especially in consideration that a lot of users can disable advertising?

Re:Why the misleading summary?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do we tag a summary as misleading?

I've been coming here for 6 years to this site, we thrive on bullshit.

You must be new here.

Re:Why the misleading summary?

[N1AK]

Over the last 3-6 months there has been an increase in completely false headlines and summaries on Slashdot. I'm sure there have always been some but it's getting frustrating. I've kept visiting Slashdot because I'm interested in the subjct areas it covers, however when it keeps covering them in such a way that I can't trust anything I read to be accurate a lot of that value is gone.

Re:Why the misleading summary?

[velin]

What is this 'advertising' of which you speak?

Re:Why the misleading summary?

[Neutral_Observer]

I'm surprised to see no car analogy yet.

Expectations

[Roger W Moore]

Why only show law enforcement goofs, sometimes the bad guys do some pretty stupid stuff also.

You typically expect the bad guys to do stupid things - usually what they are getting arrested for! Less so with the police.

ECHR will probably block this...

[thrill12]

As it seems - on the surface (this *is* slashdot :) - that this violates some of the basic human rights, and those are mainly covered by the ECHR in Europe (www.echr.coe.int). These kind of law suits in front of "lower" judges tend to be based on a limited set of facts (from what I can see in similar cases), and do not take into account the full extent of the law that protects these organizations - such as the European law. Takes a while though... And... IANAL -YMMV

Police integrity is police integrity ...

[MacTO]

I'm sorry, but I'm a teacher who has to put up with all sorts of crap to prove my integrity. So when it comes down to people who have even more power and even more rights, I believe that they should be held more accountable.

So fuck your unions. Mine has agreed to semi independent reviews. Yours should too. I can still be hung by my balls over baseless accussations (that you claim to investigate), so you should too. When you are willing to find innocence (or guilt) of my members, I will listen to your whinng. Until then, you're just a baseless bunch of bureaucrats.

Re:Police integrity is police integrity ...

[cheaphomemadeacid]

hmm seems like they only want the power, not the responsibility...

Re:Police integrity is police integrity ...

[Eunuchswear]

So you're whining that since your union is too crap to protect you other people's unions should fold too?

You're also being stupid enough to believe a crappy mistranslation from French to English. The actual union complaint was about the safety of police officers not the "integrity of the police force". Does your union not take action to protect your safety?

Re:Police integrity is police integrity ...

[sabt-pestnu]

Do you have many students looking up your home address and sending you letters threatening the lives of you and your family?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds completely valid to me. Governments collect data on their citizens. Is it not also valid for their citizens to collect data on the government? Especially the police, which is prone to corruption and misuse of power? To not allow oversight is only acknowledging that there are problems which politicians will refuse to solve. Making it blatant by blacklisting the source of some oversight should only make the problem more obvious, so hopefully more sites will be started to provide the same service.

French here

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad reporting, this website was not about reporting misconduct but identifying cops by pictures and possibly posting their personal details.

Privacy?

[pairo]

My French is very rusty and google translate doesn't work with https (and I'm too lazy to copy paste everything by hand), but from what I saw, it has photos and names, no addresses, phone numbers or shoesize. It also had screenshots of facebook with them saying they hate non white people and similar for a couple of them.
The article is misleading, yes. But so is saying they're disclosing personal oh-so-sensitive information.

Heil Hitler Heil Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

The Vichy Government returns!

What next? Ban wikipedia?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is unbelievable that events like these could take place just 50 years ago in
a democratic country - and go unpunished
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Re:What next? Ban wikipedia?

[Eunuchswear]

So, who did time for Kent State?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[maroberts]

There is an obvious balance between the right of freedom of expression and on the other side a right to a private life, and both sides could probably make a Human Rights case. The European Convention on Human Rights is a set of balances; whilst a site which documented police abuse of power would probably be protected by the ECHR, a site which crossed the line by publishing private addresses of police with a view to harassing or threatening them would not be protected.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[N1AK]

You expect people to take your support of people posting police officers personal information on a website seriously, when you you're not only posting on a forum that doesn't post your personal details but doing so using an optional feature to be 'anonymous'? Good luck with that.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[xenobyte]

Instead of using the personal names, addresses etc. of the listed police officers, use badge numbers or similar. That way you avoid getting too personal while still being able to accurately identify each officer. Providing personal info is getting too close in a very unconstructive way, a way that just asks for morons to send bullets in the mail and similar.

Now document every accusation. If you want to accuse a certain officer of brutality or other misconduct, document it using video or similar. Then it can and must be taken seriously.

The purpose of the site must be to make itself obsolete.i.e. to have each and ever police officer behave in a way that's beyond reproach whenever they're doing their job. "Everything that's worth doing is worth doing right" - That should apply to all law enforcement officers around the world. There's never any reason to cross that line. If you can't control your actions, you don't belong in the police - or at least not in any public part of the police. There's always the desk jobs...

I'm not kidding. Any law enforcement officer that abuses power in any way, shape or form must be prosecuted and if convicted summarily fired without benefits in addition to any punishment that's part of the conviction. Only that way can the law enforcement community regain respect in the community which includes their 'clients'.

This Story is a Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me like it's more about the safety (exposing personal data) rather than the integrity (morality? ethics) of the police. Bad translation, a sensational headline, or a dimwit editor?

Herp a derp derp, the world will never know.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[cheekyjohnson]

What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.

"If you were in X situation, you'd change your mind!" That can be used for just about anything.

Or you could be saying that since he has not had his private information exposed here, that means that his criticisms and opinions are invalid (or that you think it is). But, since this is about police, I still don't see what his situation has to do with anything. No matter what, it would likely change nothing.

Unless I misunderstood you, of course.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Eunuchswear]

[ posting names and addresses of police officers ] Sounds completely valid to me.

says the Anonymous Coward.

French cops are too soft

[jsse]

In where I live, you could be charged of national treason for reporting a police officer locking six girls in his own basement for his own pleasure and occasionally taking them out for earning money by prostitution (that how he got caught - after locking them up for two years, and two girls were already found dead).

And good luck of being caught misbehaved in public, or you would be dragged into the police station and being hit for at least two hours, even when you are a high ranking military officer yourself.

I'm risking my life telling you this. Now please excuse while I get the door, someone has been knocking my door vigorously for several minutes already...

and yet they let Hitler walk in

[cheekyboy]

How many cops arrested hitler when he rolled in to France?

None.

Useless cops. Wouldnt sacrifice their life for their country when an obvious law breaking evil MOFO rides into town.

Re:and yet they let Hitler walk in

[Lockyy]

I think at that point we were well past the point of the leaders of countries rolling into battle along side the foot soldiers. I think everyone realized the stupidity of that tactic way before ww2...

Re:and yet they let Hitler walk in

[aunt edna]

How many cops arrested hitler when he rolled in to France?

None.

Useless cops. Wouldnt sacrifice their life for their country when an obvious law breaking evil MOFO rides into town.

What?
Cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
~ well, someone had to say it ~

Re:and yet they let Hitler walk in

[Chrisq]

I think at that point we were well past the point of the leaders of countries rolling into battle along side the foot soldiers. I think everyone realized the stupidity of that tactic way before ww2...

Or maybe when it comes to deciding whether to go to war or not "forgotten the intelligence of that tactic".

siterip torrent plz, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

siterip torrent plz, anyone?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not NA1K, but I agree.

Everyone must have a right to privacy, police officer included.
Also, the purpose of collecting and publishing police officer personal information is to harass them, and so, as public servant they must be protected.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.

If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[cheekyjohnson]

If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?

Attaching importance to anonymity is not the same thing as forcing others (in this case, the government) to ensure that you remain anonymous.

Second of all, it's certainly possible to allow some people to have privacy whilst denying it to others. You might call it unfair, but it's likely possible for someone to believe that that is how it should be done.

I just don't think that "you posted anonymously; therefore, your criticisms are dismissed" is a good argument.

list of mirrors taken from the site

[Anonymous Coward]

https://streisand.okhin.fr/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://streisand.trollab.org/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://front-comtois.com/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://mirror.chezmanu.eu/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
https://id-libre.org/copwatchnord-idf/ (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://mirrors.l0cal.com/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
https://copwatch-mirror.qsdf.org (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://pirat.me/flamby/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18 / Autoblog)
http://xvm-169-206.ghst.net/copwatch/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.meta.gd/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.hadop.in/ (Outdated)
http://copwatch.meta.gd/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.cypr.in/ (Outdated)
http://vienssucer.mateu.be (slow bandwidth / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.org.mirror.worldwideweb2.nl (Down ?)
https://downloads.event-lan.net/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (CAcert SSL / Outdated)
http://barbara.mobeatie.com/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (slow bandwidth / Outdated)
http://www.yoltie.net/streisand/copwatchnord-idf.org (Outdated)
http://mirror.labs.fr/pub/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (CAcert SSL / Outdated)
http://autistici.org/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Outdated)
https://copwatch.red-net.info/ (incomplete / Outdated / CAcert SSL)
http://www.zone84.net/streisand/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.empedokles.eu/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://cleanplanet.free.fr/ (Update 2011-10-15)
http://copwatch.antagonism.org/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.org.ruwenzori.net (Update 2011-10-18 - IPv6 only)
http://www.agarwaen.net/copwatch/ (Outdated)
https://beelo.venez.fr/streisand/copwatch/ (down?)
http://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/copwatchnord-idf/ (Outdated)
http://copwatch-idf.mirror.tengu.ch/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.tshirtman.fr/ (slow bandwidth / incomplete)
http://angenoir.me/streisand/copwatch/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://hoper.dnsalias.net/miroirs/copwatchnord-idf.org/
http://mirror.optrash.net/copwatchnord-idf.org/

Apparently you can get an updated list of mirrors from:
http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Copwatch
which also tells you how to become a mirror.

Re:list of mirrors taken from the site

[GameboyRMH]

Not one .onion site on there. Tsk tsk.

Re:list of mirrors taken from the site

[Anonymous Coward]

nor .i2p eepsite.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, I have seen several posts already that changed my mind on this ruling. The first is something someone else posted in reply to already: the site was listing the home address of police officers, apparently irrespective of whether or not that officer had abused his authority as a police officer (I am not sure that I would agree with releasing that private info even if the officer had abused his authority, but if he hasn't than there is no business with it being publicized). Second, someone posted above info about the credo of the site and it appears that the site believes that the police are an inherently evil institution (that the very existence of a police force is evil).

Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[Quila]

And in those places, like good libertarian utopias, the violent gang leaders are screwing the citizens without enough government power to stop them

In order to achieve its goal of protecting individual rights, libertarianism requires enough government power to prevent exactly this.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[Hatta]

Yeah, they replace violent gang leaders with gang leaders backed by government violence and we're back in the corporate facist state we started with.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[Quila]

Yeah, they replace violent gang leaders with gang leaders backed by government violence and we're back in the corporate facist state we started with.

But then it's no longer a libertarian state. A government with enough power to back those gang leaders obviously has too much power.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[Hatta]

A government without that much power will be insufficient to stave off warlords.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[Quila]

A government with that much power not used to protect individual rights, and instead support warlords, is not libertarian.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[AK Marc]

The "no true Scotsman" libertarian argument. I wasn't misstating libertarianism. I was talking about the day after "perfect" libertarianism was in place. You describe what you want it to be, and I'll list off the obvious ways in which it's unsustainable.

Re:Yet another misstatement of libertarianism

[AK Marc]

So the difference between fascism and libertarianism is the actions of a bureaucrat. Good to know that a claimed libertarian believes the two to be essentially identical. The rest of us already knew that.

a classic case"It's only a crime if you're caught"

[bobamu]

and if you are in anyway "special", you aren't "allowed" to be caught. I believe this is known as "the system, working".

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not kidding. Any law enforcement officer that abuses power in any way, shape or form must be prosecuted and if convicted summarily fired without benefits in addition to any punishment that's part of the conviction. Only that way can the law enforcement community regain respect in the community which includes their 'clients'.

Everyone makes mistakes and that includes you, me and police. It is not reasonable to expect anyone to not make mistakes ever, and that goes for even people put in charge of very important concerns like doctors, policemen and judges. Normal people can't do something like a beating just by mistake, because their job never requires them to subdue people. Police do have to do such things in the course of their job, so sometimes it is inevitable that they are going to do it wrong somehow. We shouldn't crucify them for that.

What does need to happen is to have a system in place that is likely to catch, document and make public (possibly with the identities of the policemen in question redacted) mistakes, and for mistakes to be acted upon. The punishment does not need to be severe at first, all that needs to be true is that all policemen know that if they do make mistakes, it's going to be found out and that having a history of mistakes and abuses is not going to work well for them. What does need to be punished harshly is when a policeman attempts to cover mistakes up, such as by confiscating and destroying video evidence or by leaning on colleagues.

What's the French word for fascism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure that arrogant little prick Sarkozy can tell us, because it is part of
his daily routine.

I wrote the court a nice letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanking them for bringing this to the worlds attention, hoping that the case will head one day to the High Court of Human Rights or some such body with the power to set a good and widely reaching precedent. We should encourage ISPs to fight the order long enough that the less savvy internet users of the world has a chance to see the website too. (Its hard for some of us to imagine, but not eveyone can overcome a DNS block on their own.)

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[Logarhythmic]

The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Quite an ironic sig to follow your post! Granted, my own sig is somewhat morally lacking (so there's no value judgment here), and I also appreciate the difference between healthy skepticism and vehement opposition, but I found it amusing nonetheless.

Put it on a bigger site

[Anonymous Coward]

Just post it to youtube or voustube or whatever they call it en francais

The difference is the policies of government

[Quila]

That's kind of the difference between all forms of government. Libertarianism also requires a lower amount of government power than most others.

Re:The difference is the policies of government

[AK Marc]

The less power the government has, the more the private people have. That's good until a collection of private people is more powerful than the government itself, in which case you don't have libertarianism, you have anarchy. The difference between governments is the failure modes and tolerance for failure. There's no functional difference between a weak libertarian government and fascism. There's no functional difference between pure capitalism and pure socialism (in both cases, the people who run the government run the businesses, just a minor difference of who, on paper, owns them. As we've seen with our capitalism, those with the money and power have a disproportionate influence over the government.

Libertarianism also requires a lower amount of government power than most others.

Again, just a minor language nit, but Libertarianism most certainly does not require lower government power. But it may allow for lower power, or others require more power. But there is no "requirement" of libertarianism that it limits government power below some arbitrary point relative to others. In fact, communism requires the least. Communism is functionally anarchy where the people are self-motivated to work for the greater good, though it has never been implemented as such in groups larger than small village scale.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[N1AK]

I didn't say the poster's argument was invalid. I was highlighting that a post on an online forum with no real verification of identity has little credibility, one posted using a function called 'anonymous coward' has even less and someone posting anonymously to argue that someone else should not be given that liberty has decreased that credibility to virtually nil.

I believe privacy should be protected unless a strong and sound reason not to exists. I see no good reason to grant an exception to allow people to post police officers personal details in public.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri

[cheekyjohnson]

Little credibility according to whom? According to you, maybe. I don't really care if someone posts anonymously or not since anyone could be wrong, anonymous or not. And this looked like little more than an opinion.

Besides, I don't know you anymore than I know some anonymous coward. Therefore, your credibility is nil (to me, of course).

Re:Outrageous - If the Clip Speaks for Itself

[riondluz]

Regardless of spin or what's left out, some things are over the top, beyond reasonable, flatoutwrong.
You are arguing, fundamentally, for the right of police identity to be kept 'secret'.
Despite the fact that its nearly impossible for anyone else to do; so as to widen the info (and accountability) gap.

A ruling by a judge, the influence of LEA's, should have been easily anticipated and circumvention plans in order. IP's, domains, websites, should be fundamentally disposable
alphachars. Members, subscribers....route around the law like packets on the net.
So another site should be hard for ISPs to continually detect.

CopWatch in the USA has been around at least 10 years. I found them researching the web to beat a speeding ticket. They are a solid organization, .fr is prob equiv i suspect. I can't believe they are not more known about, but for all the cameras
out there.... I cant believe this thread hasn't mentioned the USA groups who will do the same as the french ones.

i suppose 'outrageous' has to be in the eye of the beholder. Not having checked out the referenced sites 1stHand, i wouldnt know.

I can say this regardless: A video should speak for itself! Some things no amount of spin can justify; they are just plain wrong. Self-supervision is a recipe for failure.

I wish the PD == FD. Stay in the D until summoned and be sincerely appreciated for putting out the fire, stopping something in progress.

Stop patrolling like an occupier more than an occupant. Instead, we get plate-reading camera-mounted 'smart' squad cars to capture every cars' plate it sees. Always looking for suspects; comming soon to some depressed town in a constitution-free zone. Thanks probably to a nearby fusion center.

Having right to photograph authority, the police, means nothing if you don't exercise it.
Outcomes may be a mixed bag; sometime appros sometimes less than so. It is better than the status quo.

And if a cop wants to have a facebook, do the 'socialnet', then they accept what all the rest of us do; public exposure, come what may.

They are public servants, not overlording, corruptable, unaccountable, self-appointed guardians of "PublicSafety".

I've grown weary of this adversarial
relationship between the plea-bargianed JusticeSystem and (naively) the people they are supposed to protect.

It starts on the road and in the street, where the blue-coats (and agents) patrol. People who i would sincerely like to call in an emergency were it not for their us-vs-them mentality. Not unlike living near 5 prisons in NorthCountry; where 'officers' forget to go off the clock. Power breeds contempt;
condones too much to preserve a myth.

CopWatch is about keeping authority 'civil' wherever possible whenever possible. US copwatch forums are replete with stories of strangers witnessing (taping) cop-stops (being detained).
There's bound to be mistakes; but the good done outweighs the bad.

In the words of another /.'s postings:
  Don't use your own ignorance as an excuse to belittle the actions of those who have decided to stand up and say (do) something.