Slashdot Mirror
Boston Cops Outraged Over Plans to Watch Their Movements Using GPS
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Boston Globe reports that the pending use of GPS tracking devices, slated to be installed in Boston police cruisers, has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move. Boston police administrators say the system gives dispatchers the ability to see where officers are, rather than wait for a radio response and supervisors insist the system will improve their response to emergencies. Using GPS, they say, accelerates their response to a call for a shooting or an armed robbery. 'We'll be moving forward as quickly as possible,' says former police commissioner Edward F. Davis. 'There are an enormous amount of benefits. . . . This is clearly an important enhancement and should lead to further reductions in crime.' But some officers said they worry that under such a system they will have to explain their every move and possibly compromise their ability to court street sources. 'No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?' said one officer who spoke anonymously because department rules forbid police from speaking to the media without authorization. 'If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes? It's going to open up a can of worms that can't be closed.' Meanwhile civil libertarians are relishing the rank and file's own backlash. 'The irony of police objecting to GPS technology for privacy reasons is hard to miss in the aftermath of United States v. Jones,' says Woodrow Hartzog. 'But the officers' concerns about privacy illustrate just how revealing GPS technology can be. Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior.'"
"has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move"
That's sorta the point of this operation.
We know it sucks if you're just in a doughnut-shop and a robbery happens next door.
This will just nudge you to take the robbery first, the doughnut second.
As for the 45 minute dark alley meetings with confidential informants, you can be seen there with the naked eye!
Give your CI a fucking burner-phone, we're in the 3. millennium.
pots and kettles etc.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
This is pretty ironic to say the least. They loved the idea that they could track anyone at any time but they don't like the idea of being tracked. I feel no sympathy.
Their commanders? If cops can't trust other cops, why should the public trust cops?
The irony is so rich!!
Poor powiceman. Don't worry. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?
Really? 45 minutes in a dark alley 'interviewing' a reluctant witness? THAT'S your best argument against technology that could locate you instantly if your life's in peril? Someone is going to be watching the watchers in Beantown.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
while performing their duty.
They're expected to fill out a duty log detailing everything which they did.
They're expected to accurately and promptly reply when the dispatcher asks where they are and what they're doing.
If their supervisor shows up on site and asks what's happening they are obligated to comply.
If an elected official whose duties include supervising those in their chain of command shows up, they are obligated to comply w/ reasonable requests for information.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
So why were you driving a 100 miles an hour down the interstate when you weren't responding to a call? I see it pretty often around here...no siren, just one cop driving down the shoulder of the road passing traffic.....
oh... turning the tables really sucks ass, dunnit...
If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind if you're being watched, now should you?
There's a reason this ended up on the ACLU's website.
If you read TFA, Boston uses automatic license plate readers (ALPRs). Since each readout is logged and timestamped, this log data correlated with location history for cruisers could be used to build a massive location history database with very good coverage.
Barring that, as a public servant, a police officer is not entitled to privacy while on the job. As they are granted powers most people are not, they must also expect to be held accountable for their actions.
When off the clock, an officer is entitled to privacy like every other citizen. Keep in mind, the GPSes are installed in the cruisers. They're not ankle bracelets for crying out loud. If they're on foot patrol (do cops still do that?) the red dot on the dispatcher's map will show their car's location. The question mostly remains, then, do Boston cops typically drive their cruisers home, or leave them at the station and drive their personal cars home?
Since the goal of this tracking is to make 911 dispatching more efficient, the simplest solution is just to not record historic location data - show it in real time, and that's it. This mitigates tthe data mining and privacy issues while still giving 911 the tools they need.
Give the officers the ability to turn off the GPS tracking momentarily (undercover mode) and both sides should be happy.
'If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes? It's going to open up a can of worms that can't be closed.'
Then moron, you log and report it like any other part of a proper investigation, and your commanding officer will be fine. If however you were on that street using your authority to extort sex from a drug addict prostitute, I can see why you are concerned.
Personally, I think all law enforcement officers, with exception possibly of undercover operations should have constant GPS and video surveillance of them (perhaps wearing google glass). Unless it is sensitive information to a current investigation it should be public domain. Once an investigation is complete the same shoud apply.
Law enforcement types tend to be abusive bullies that think they are doing things for the good of others, much like the father/spouse that is beating you 'because I love you'. There is less and less accountability for law enforcement, we need to change that.
Silence is a state of mime.
https://www.google.com/maps/preview#!q=Dunkin'+Donuts%2C+1138+Washington+St%2C+Boston%2C+MA+02118%2C+USA
Maybe if you're conducting the "interview" with the "reluctant" witness with your fists, then you're hesitant to tell the superior officers about it.
... the watcher is watched and finds out they don't like it? Well, well...
I'm in the midst of reading a book on Victorian England. It's interesting to learn a little about how policing came into being. No surprise to me that from the very beginning, policing had nothing to do with protecting and serving anyone but the monied classes. Policing has _always_ been about subduing the restless masses. [Hey! I'm a poet and don't know it!!!]
On top of that I would add something largely forgotten: they are acting the public's trust and in the name of the government that is (at least still in name) are acting on the behalf of the public. Every person that pays into that trust with taxes should have the right to know what is going on and hold officials accountable.
Police departments attract people that like to use authority over others and many officers forget they are operating in the public trust. There should no expectation of privacy at all, and I think the Federal courts constant cutting down of rules and laws meant to keep police actions private backs that idea up.
Answer: People who are on the clock, and on the public payroll. Put down the donut and get to work, officer, like the rest of us. Has anyone noticed how all the union-busting laws that have been passed by Republican governors and legislatures exempt police and firefighter unions from regulation? That's insulting.
So the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like it. Well too bad. Law enforcement has always claimed it's not a violation of our privacy, so how can it be a violation of theirs? There are problems with the plan of course, but overall I like the idea of the courts being able to ask the police what they were doing in the area when a defense witness mysteriously falls down two flights of stairs.
My big question is, can the officers turn the system off like their badge-cams when they beat up suspects?
How long before organized crime is also tracking the movements of officers?
... & here I am playing the world smallest violin for these poor, put-upon police officers.
There is a war going on for your mind.
they'll have their freedom to do what they want restricted, so of course they're outraged. That's really the only issue here.
Cops are worried that they are being followed? Haha! Oh, the irony... it's killing me.
Many public safety departments use location tracking and reporting so they can dispatch the closest units. My department's fire apparatus report their location so it can be displayed on the county CAD system as well as on the on-board mobile data terminals of other units.
This is where you pick the dark back street behind the donut shop.
This is going to show how much time they spend per year looking for Mooninites.
As a Bostonian this makes me happy. Maybe the cops sleeping in their cars will now have to work for a living. Having worked downtown for years I know exactly where and when to go to find a cop hiding and asleep in his car.
Policemen need to be reminded that they work for the People, and they need to be accountable to a higher standard given the authority that they are granted.
Guys, if you don't like it, perhaps consider another career. No one is forcing you to be a policeman.
In a regular 9 - 5 job, like as an accountant, I would agree that having your movements tracked is not reasonable or necessary. But as a police officer, I think it should be de rigeur.
And let's be honest.... it's not like this information is going on a website. The only people seeing it will be your captain or his supervisors. It's still behind your fabled "blue line" so really, what are you afraid of?
Further, every professional LE officer I've talked to is carries a pen camera just so they've got something to back up their argument. It's not high enough resolution to be very useful for anything other than showing roughly where they are and who shot first, but it sure beats testimony when facing accusations.
Dear Public Servants: If you're not doing anything wrong, then there shouldn't be a problem.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
All the field technicians have company supplied phones that have GPS tracking enabled. Their supervisor can track them via a map display and their movements are logged and retained. They also are dispatched via those phones and enter their time and material accounting per job that way. It's very efficient. Do they like it? No, not very much, but it's part of the deal if you work as a field technician for this company with over 30,000 employees world-wide. If you don't like it, don't work in this well-paid industry. All of the competitors are doing the same thing.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
The job of being a lookout just got easier, if a bit more technical. In addition to a portable scanner, they'd need a smartphone or some other gadget to watch the red dots on the map.
I work in Law Enforcement in Canada (not a cop) but I can tell you that up here, in my area anyways; we have GPS not only in the cars, but on each officers individual RADIO. Hell even the meter maids have GPS in their radio. Its an officer safety question, when you make an Officer needs assistance call dispatch immediately knows exactly where you are, and everyone else can respond accordingly. I've never heard any officer complain about it.
It has other uses too, for example the bylaw/parking officer can simply call for a tow truck "To my location" and then leave and get on with their day.
If a cop typically spends a couple hours out of an eight-hour shift courting informants, and it's getting good results, then bravo.
The cops aren't the ones repeating that ancient fable. They're only the pawns. It's the elite few at the top of the power pyramid who use that line -- the ones who run the business of government, call the shots, and benefit the most from endlessly expanding the business of government (via the police state or otherwise). Those are the masterminds, the architects of oppression. They are the ones you should direct your anger at, not the pawns.
Perhaps we should extend this to any government official. Make them wear a GPS device on their person that at any time the general public can track their every move.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
They are public employees and the public has every right to know where they are and what they are doing well at work. The public is effectively there boss / manager, at any company your boss / manager would want to know where you are so I don't see what the issue, I say just do it and if they don't like it they can quit.
Of Boston's NPR this morning having a series on prostitution in Boston, and talking about the frequency that Boston cops are seen ... well, lets just say not arresting the girls ...
No wonder they don't want GPS in the cars ...
... is good for the gander.
They should be challenged on why they think that mass surveillance and law enforcement overreach is okay for us, but not them.
Plain and simple.
Between cops who think they can confiscate your camera and delete the images, cops who file an incident report only to have amateur video show what really happened, the fact that they want to have warrantless wiretapping and GPS tracking, and generally a lot of bad behavior -- these days citizens have very little reason to trust cops.
Either the perception is they're outright lying to us, or that they're crooked and on the take, or just generally willing to abuse their authority.
I'm sure there are many good an honest cops. But there's also a fair few which seem anything but.
How often has there been an officer involved shooting, which eventually turns out to be a complete misuse of force which we never would have known about without something catching it on video to tell us what really happened?
I'm of the opinion cops should be absolutely tracked on GPS, and should also be wearing cameras to record their interactions with the public. And in a world where the government wants to spy on everything we do, I have no sympathy for police who want to be able to be off the record and leave it entirely to the story they tell us to define the truth.
Often these days one is left with the impression that there's enough cops who are just thugs with badges that you more or less have to assume we're better off by closely watching what they do instead of just taking them at face value.
Because there's been at least half a dozen news stories in the last few years where the police have been shown to be lying, and just circling the wagons to come up with the official story when they do something wrong.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I passed an unmarked a few hours ago, looked at the cops inside and just shook my head and thought "Somehow, the criminals don't scare me like these guys do."
So many cops have such a "Bad Boy" look these days. They carry themselves as if they're mean and tough. And frankly, I couldn't imagine asking one for help. Last year, I was in North Carolina and was lost and my phone battery was dead. I walked up to an officer and politely asked him if he could point me towards the local train station. He abruptly pointed and walked away. I eventually asked someone who looked like a criminal as I was out of options and he gave me good directions and a light for my cigarette.
I think cops who are used to a little too much freedom might need this.
Naw, it's just typical union mentality that gets in the way of something like quicker response time. This means that resources get used more efficiently, reducing crime and not having to incur additional costs such as more police. That's contrary to labor practice which is let's hire more people. Or they could just be trying to find the best doughnut/coffee shops in town. Does this mean when the police get caught up in all the "police state" surveillance there may actually be some thoughts of saying we've gone to far? Naw, the Administration and the Defense contractors have too much vested interest in selling all those drones and cameras and license plate trackers. So, cops of Boston, consider this a jobs program but not for you but for all those oinks in DC living off of our Tax Dollars.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
because I caught myself thinking this is a good idea. It sounds fine. But any other type of surveillance of any other group of people I would vehemently oppose. Why is it that this doesn't bother me, and is this what it feels like to be a supporter of the NSA?
This is even worse for the general public. There is nothing meaner than a pissed off cop. Try explaining why you were in a dark alley for 45 minutes to a cop who has to explain why he was in a dark alley for 45 minutes..
The police have the same concerns as we do getting tracked - that supervisors that are less than competent or manipulating politics will burn them. Not to mention money chasing lawyers that will manipulate this in court, or the misinfotainment corporations that will twist truth and blatantly lie to sell more papers and commercials. If you want to track the real threat then go after the politicians. They're the ones make the stupid laws that the police have to enforce.
Now if we could only stop and frisk the motherfuckers, too...
Those po po po.
I'd only argue that I would replace "pays taxes" with "citizenship". Lots of foreign visitors pay taxes of one sort or another, but its citizens who the cops are primarily in charge of protecting. Likewise, not all citizens can, do or are able to pay taxes but should still be able to hold the police accountable (eg. underage people, low income people, etc).
myself and all others there are watched for 8 hours, we don't care. why do cops need so much privacy at work? btw don't they get paid to watch others? lol, seems the shoe is on the other foot and they cry foul.
OK, guys, no cruisers within 20 minutes from here - let's hit them.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
They must be worried that they'll be caught having a tea party
There has never been a cop around when I wanted or needed one. Where can I get the BPD cop app?? Plenty of money to be made if someone finds a way to get the live data and integrate it with Gmaps.
It will be better to purchase from an owner who is a good farmer and a good builder.
Paging the world's smallest violin, you're needed on board the waaaamublance.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
You maybe mean citizen or something else. Police are not part of the military (yet) and so not able to refer to everyone else as civilians. Don't add to the confusion.
Normally chilling effects are bad, but, I have long felt police behaviour could use a serious chilling effect, maybe even a freezing one.
However, that was always just my feeling, now that there is some data: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/body-cameras-revolutionizing-police-accountability-video/
When police know actions are being recorded, a 60% drop in use of force. Amazing how people's actions change when there is a credible witness.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Perhaps law enforcement needs a little primer on why us civilians feel privacy is a human NEED, let alone right.
In addition, they are PUBLIC servants by law. They have no right to complain about this while ON THE JOB.
Boo-F'ing-Hoo. No sympathy here.
Those who are employed as public servants, be they police or fire or even plain old government workers, should expect to be held to a higher standard. You are working for the public, not some company or even some NPO. You work for everyone. With that comes an additional level of responsibility, and thus additional scrutiny.
I find it disturbing when a police cruiser is being driven recklessly, particularly when the lights aren't flashing. I similarly find it amusing that police don't want to be monitored - given recent stories about officers caught spending their patrol time sleeping. (Do a Google search. Its rampant enough that you'll find plenty of hits) If the GPS says the cruiser hasn't moved for the past 60 minutes, we probably know what's going on.
As to the remarks herein about attitudes of officers towards the citizenry, I concur. Every interaction I've had with uniformed officers has been identical. I'm the idiot for asking directions. I'm the one at fault for whatever is their current interest. I'm the criminal. I'm the one that needs to be 'dealt with'. Whatever happened to "Serve and Protect"?
Finally, we have far too many police. If the only thing your officers have to do is to sit along side the roads and point a radar gun, then you have too many police. Police unions will never back down from forcing city and county governments to hire ever more patrolmen. It is counter to their interests. However the number of patrolmen on staff should be dictated by the crime rate and the response requirements of the community - not its population.
Just like in the computer world, those who get elevated rights should get increase scrutiny of their actions. Cops have elevated permissions in the real world (the blue code (getting away from certain crimes because they are cops), implied trust when testifying (if it is your word vs a cops in court, guess whose testimony gets trusted?)). All of which means that they should surrender a certain amount of privacy when they put on the badge (and now technology is finally allowing for this to happen).
NSA approved.
The poor dears... Coppers can never catch a break, can they? Like when they accidentally empty their magazines into some scary/scared-looking family and their trained attack-poodle because they smashed down the wrong... like, 'cause the family was living at the wrong address, even though it was obviously an accident, they still get swapped on deir poow widdle wists... even though they got a suspicious-looking animal off the streets. It ain't right, god damn it.
*sniff*
Now my Boston cream doughnut's turned into a Boston stream doughnut, 'ca... well, 'cause it's all soggy with tears! :o(
*weeps to bagpipe music*
I know... I'll go shatter some poor asshole's life, that always cheers me up! :S
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
take alternate transportation to meet your 'contacts' - do we have to think of everything? If you are meeting sources in a clearly marked police car, how do you explain to their buddies that you just want information?
I'd push for some sort of body-mounted camera as well. Maybe have the video synced with ACLU servers on the hour. There have been far too many circumstances in the recent past where (some) Cops have abused the imbalance of power, made up their own interpretation of the law, and bullied, beat, robbed, raped or killed people just because they are cops and nobody will challenge them.
The "Good cops", who are not ego-manical f#ckwads, should be pushing for this also. You guys are getting a bad image due to a handful of criminals working in your department.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Police hate accountability, film at 11.
Oh wait, it's the cops who were part of this glorious defense of civil liberty? Yeah, I really feel bad for them.
Mod parent up. Theaetetus has the right idea. When a cop is performing his or her duty, they are enacting the will of their superiors (-all- the way up the chain)...not their own. They must be held to account when they step outside the law.
In Providence, RI about a decade ago. To my knowledge, all the cruisers have GPS in them today.
But it sort of reminds me back about five years ago. I was working in a state government office and part of my duties were to occasionally glance through the proxy logs. One day I note some sort of egregious behavior on the part of our Chief of Staff and so I bring it to the unit Director where I'm told "We do nothing about it." I tarried with "So does this apply to everyone?". No answer.
So from that point forward, nobody was watching proxy traffic. We eventually threw up a DansGuardian server but we exempted the upper administration and I.T. So essentially the stooges in other units couldn't go to certain places.
Just the other day a bunch of climbers heading up Mont Blanc were complaining about all this new fangled tracking and alerts system - what? You mean the rescue choppers can pinpoint us if anything goes wrong?
What the fucking fuck, I am surprised cops aren't up in arms about adequate protection against false claims and a no-response back-up.
Fucking donut-sucking rednecks.
In the company I work for we track about 40 Android phones. This has been useful on a number of occasions. When people have needed assistence we have been able to send people out their exact location quickly without relying on crappy panicked directions. We're in a pretty dangerous country, so it's good to know that people know where you are. If you bhave responsibly you have nothing to worry about.
Remember, this is the state where a citizen who was being harassed recorded the officer, and was convicted of a crime for breaking the state's law against recording police. This is the state where all the courts, all the way through the state supreme court, upheld that travesty.
This is also the state that pulled the same shit years later on a lawyer, who then skipped the state courts and went straight to federal court, who had very very unkind things to say about that law and the state supreme court ;-)
Its ok for the police to monitor (and I don't just mean warranted use of gps tracking) the every day activities of normal citizens but its not ok for the police to monitor themselves. mmmmm.
Let's not forget that other parts of this same legal system (specifically our court system) has said it is ok for private employers to violate the rights of their employees by doing all kinds of monitoring.
Sorry, I can't help but to be cynical.
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
Agreed.
Why do those in Authority have a problem with Accountability?
Authority without Accountability leads to Anarchy.
Authority without Accountability leads to abuse of Totalism.
Accountability without Authority leads to Bureaucracy.
The proper balance of Authority + Accountability = efficient functioning of the system.
If they are following the law then they have nothing to hide, right?
Public Servants "conveniently" keep forgetting that:
a) They are Public -- their actions are Accountable to the public
b) Their purpose is to Serve the greater good of the public -- they have the Authority to carry out the law.
there were a lot of unreported incidents that occurred in Dunkin Donuts.
You can't lie to a GPS system. Therein lies the rub. If every cop was a saint, you'd have a valid point. Their 'privacy' is their ability to lie.
Common Sense (+1)
It makes sense. The powers that be don't trust the cops on the street any more than we citizens. They need to know which are subversives, e.g. refusing to beat on Wall Street protestors with enough vigor. So the NSA watches all police forces to make sure that their bully boys are doing their jobs, making the uber rich even uber richer.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Badge, Gun, Privacy.
Choose any two. You want all three? That's where you are exceeding the limits of a lawful and transparent society.
I've seen much more scrutiny on teachers than I do on Bankers and more scrutiny on temp help line workers than police. This world is upside down on "personal responsibility" such that people with the least income and power are given the most responsibility and least privacy.
As long as no bad guy ever uses a private jet,... since private jets have very little scrutiny yet could potentially cause more problems. It's so nice that our bad guys behave so well and confine themselves to doing evil that affects the commoners...
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
because cops use their crusiers for personal use when they aren't supposed to. In Maryland I see off duty cops, state troopers, and deputies driving around all of the time. How do I know? The passengers in the front and back seats that look like wives and kids give it away. Oh and seeing them loading a car with groceries too. I'm sure that this is technically agains the rules, and if the right people had the ability to just pull a tracker they would be able to see the misuse of resources paid for by the public.
" has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move."
Good, they should. At least while on duty.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They have all kinds of ingenious places around here where they they hide out, I'm assuming not for cop work since they're never close enough to the road to track speeders. They used to hide out in our parking garage, but as soon as they put in security cameras they all moved to new places.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Get out of the car and walk to your secret meet. All they'll know is that you parked somewhere in the neighborhood. Cops do still walk the beat, don't they?
why would cops think that they would be excluded in a police state?
Children don't pay taxes ?! fsck that! Let the cops shoot them; at least I paid for it when they shot me.
You guys don't get it - cops aren't against this because it'll catch them breaking the law, they do that all the time now with impunity. They're against it because their boss will be able to see them taking naps in parking lots.
The only way you get to a cop is to threaten to take away their OT, tenure, or pension.
I think that's ass-backwards, but I guess that's just me.
'The irony of police objecting to GPS technology for privacy reasons is hard to miss in the aftermath of United States v. Jones,' says Woodrow Hartzog.
Exactly.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
" have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior"
Yeah, it will have a chilling effect on their ability to do things other than their job. I'm conducting an orchestra of small violins right now for them.
Yeah, I've heard about the Rampart squad on the LAPD, and I know all about the abuses of the NYPD. But to say "Fuck the police. They are badge wearing gang bangers who murder people and get away with it?" No, that's beyond the pale. You're applying a general mis-informed malicious stereotype against millions of people. *Some* of them are probably close to what you describe. But MOST are not--they're tax-paying citizens who get up every morning, put on a Kevlar vest, a uniform, and a badge, and go out to deal with the best AND the worst of humanity. It's the Highway Patrolman who climbs into an ambulance to hold the hand of a severely-injured driver who has no one else there for her; it's the city beat cop who arrests the crack-addicted mother and then takes her child in for the first warm meal and a safe bed that the child's known in weeks--if not years; it's the sheriff's deputy who kicks down the door and discovers that the old man is a mentally-deranged cat hoarder and saves the lives of dozens of mal-nourished sick felines. It's the Detective who reopens a cold case, solves it, and brings peace & closure at last to a grieving family. You, on the other hand, well... I doubt I could say anything nice about you if I got to know you.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
the standard response that Federal, state and local agencies give private citizens who question or object to the various types of privacy invading servailence that they have to endure.
Why do you object if you have nothing to hide, or are doing nothing wrong?
Doesn't sit so well does it Boston cops when the shoe is on the other foot!
There's a pretty simple solution to meet the primary goal in the summary and the article, "Knowing where your assets are to get the right ones responding in an emergency". Simply don't log the data. You use it to show where an officer is, but you don't log all their activity.
"Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior." Don't they mean: "Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police misbehavior"?
Someone or something to police the police. If you need your 45 minute meeting to be private from your superior, you are up to no good in the first place. Sounds like you will have to stop living like a dirty cop and play by the rules just like everyone else.
Of course police cars should be tracked. They're dispatched centrally, after all. The dispatchers need to know who's where.
Traditionally, the approach used is to put cops in small patrol areas ("beats") so dispatch knows roughly where they are. But this is an ineffective use of resources. Dispatch should be moving cops around as necessary depending on the level of activity and coverage.
> its citizens who the cops are primarily in charge of protecting
If you have watched the news at all over the last few years, you will hear police and their leadership repeatedly say that they are not in the business of protecting the public. They are there to enforce laws. Period.
Seriously. Even a casual search should yield lots of results.
...Steve
This is MA we're talking about, where they've even passed a law making it illegal to record police.
Many (most?) cruisers that I see troll around for speeding tickets. Yet every time I see one on the road - it's going 80 or more, slowing down once in a while to wait for a car in front to get out of the way. This would be plainly obvious form the GPS recordings. But then again, I bet there's a law in MA that allows them to speed as much as they like, as long as they bring home the requisite number of tickets.
I've lived outside US where police was terribly corrupt, and even MA cops are a godsend by comparison. But it's shit like this - being unnecessarily aggressive and above the law - that turns a good situation into a bad one.
Well, they shouldn't be worried if they have nothing to hide, right? Right?
Make em wear cameras 24/7 too.
School bus drivers don't need to have their shit together?
Most drug tests don't detect intoxication. They detect the metabolites of drug use, which linger for a few hours (LSD) to a few weeks (THC) after use, depending on the drug in question and that particular person's metabolism. Frankly I don't care if the bus driver smoked a joint three days ago. I do care if he's under the influence at the moment he's driving the bus, but other than alcohol we never test for actual intoxication, just past use.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
..has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move
And what exactly is their 'worry'?
Can the assholes be ticketed to hell? Oh dear, someone was tailgating your ass while you were going downhill. Yes, there was nowhere to pull over, but fuck, you shouldn't be speeding even to put distance between you and the other vehicle.
The Hells Angels motorcycle club are huge philanthropists http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/12/outlaw-bikers-turn-santas-helpers-in-toys-for-tots/
and most of *them* are good community citizens rather than cycle-riding gangbangers.
When you belong to an organization that has members who ARE gun slinging gangbangers and you shield those members from prosecution then you deserve to be painted with the same stinky brush because you are enabling their abuses.
If you have nothing to hide..........
Cops like all other groups of people have individuals that do things they should not do. As far as the bizarre sex nonsense cops are about equal to Congress. Now the cops may actually have to do the job while on duty. It will also stop cops from making excuses about showing up when a violent conflict breaks out. It will also validate or invalidate complaints about lack of patrols around some businesses and neighborhoods. There are business districts in which no squad car passes a business for days at a time. That in itself causes a lot of crime.
The cops who are furious at this are furious because now they won't be able to pull off certain shenanigans that they've grown accustomed to doing all along.
Posting A/C because I'm the sysadmin of a medium-size city govt's police dept in the southern US. When we implemented GPS trackers in all the patrol vehicles, most of our officers had no problem at all with it, just like they had no problem with the dashcams installed in their cruisers. There were a couple who objected vehemently about it... our IA division soon learned why, and fixed those problems.
BTW, the detectives, the ones who actually interview witnesses, are exempt from the GPS trackers on their vehicles. The beat cops on patrol do not interview "reluctant witnesses in dark alleys for 45 minutes"... ever... so that pathetic excuse is complete utter bullshit.
HA! HA!
The only way this surveillance crap will ever end well is if everybody gets to look at everybody's data. If I can check on where my political leaders, government officials, cops, and corporate leadership is at any time and see what they've been doing online, I have no objection to them doing the same to me or anybody else. Until that day, it's a problem. Because then it's not about whether I have anything to hide but rather whether they'd like to be able to misbehave without any real risk of me even trying to do anything or say anything about it.
Systems like this are great in theory and when correctly used. However when incorrectly used they can make the employee's life hell.
My work has them to track vehicles to make sure that they are properly used as they have a "zero personal use" policy. This suits me just fine as I'm not one of the guys that needs a car so I happily go without this draconian rule.
My wife on the other hand works for a company that installed them under the guise of "employee safety" as they go into some less desirable locations and they can get into a crap situation if they aren't careful. It doesn't happen very often that the locator is needed genuinely, but it does happen from time to time and in those situations they and the "emergency help" button have proven handy.
Her bosses however have decided to use it far above and beyond this agreed use ( the correct use was signed off on by HR and management and the employees concerned). Her boss knows what time she usually leaves for work thanks to the tracking unit, he also knows which locations she is visiting and which other employee's are nearby (he is an asshole and doesn't like them meeting up outside of the office in case they are conspiring against him, a real trusting individual). He has even given his login info to one of his lackeys while he went on holiday recently so that they could keep tabs on whom went where and when.
Generally the guy is a dick and bringing the situation to light with HR has done very little except giving him more of an excuse to be an asshole, not to get him to back down at least a little bit. I can't wait for them to fire him, but it just doesn't seem like it will ever happen. He must have photos of someone up high in the chain in a compromising situation or something.
Think of the implications when criminals and everyday citizens get ahold of the police GPS data. How convenient would it be to have a map of the city with a little blip showing the position of each cop car if you were say, trying to plan a murder, or smuggling methamphetamine. You could track the rounds each squad car takes over the course of weeks and plan the perfect route to avoid any intervention. Not to mention the end of speed traps as we know it.
With a granule of sodium chloride, most studies indicate they commit suicide and divorce spouses at a higher than average rate, and c'mon, would you trade paychecks with them?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I'd rather they be on the side of the road with a cardboard sign. Harassing people to justify their employment is not a service to the community.
I had a cop tailgate me about three weeks back. It was night, there was no shoulder to pull off to and I was not aware of who the person was, I did the instinctual thing and sped up a bit to put some distance between the cop and I.
What the hell kind of chances do you think I'll have in court? About the only thing I have going for me is that in all time I have only one other ticket on record, in 2005.
What they forget realise is that GPS is useless in Boston. In the places where you can get a signal, it's still significantly off.
Check out the 2006 fatality statistics published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor. The national average mortality rate on the job for all occupations is 4 deaths per 100,000 workers. Police and firefighter deaths on the job are a bit over 4 times that average. Clearly their jobs are more hazardous than what most working people have to face.
But let's compare that public safety mortality rate with some other blue collar, mostly male jobs. The figures below are the number of on-the-job deaths annually per 100,000 workers, by occupation (and note the average for men vs. women):
Policemen: 16.8
Firefighters: 16.6
Men: 6.9
Women: 0.7
Farmers and Ranchers: 37.2
Grounds Maintenance Workers: 13.5
Fishers and related Fishing Workers: 147.2
Construction Laborers: 21.4
Roofers: 33.5
Structural Iron and Steel Workers: 61
Operating Engineers and other Equipment Operators: 18.2
Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers: 90.4
Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors: 40.7
Logging: 87.4
Mining: 28.1
Taxi and limousine drivers: 22.1
Truck Transportation: 27.2
'No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?'
Oh man this has be fucking golden!
While the people of the country are tracked on a day-to-day basis by the NSA the cops get to complain? ... F OFF
Not terribly long ago many police officers were anti-in car video systens. Many of the same reasons given at that time are being given now against tracking of police cars. Now in car video is considered the norm. The same thing will happen with GPS IN the police car.
GOOD!
We're /.
The GPS in the cop car can be rigged to include accelerometer data from the seats. When the accelerometer indicates movement similar to that of sexual activity in the car, it will send an alert to the dispatcher and the unit commander. It could also activate a camera inside the car, and that could be financed through pay-per-view.
Technology solves another problem.
If your only tool is a hammer, you'll approach every problem as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Also, an ex's sister was married to a cop, & therefore she had a sticker on her car that (while it said something like "I support the so-&-so PD!",) actually means, "I am cop-family; don't ticket me." She was even negociating with her sister's husband to get one of those stickers for herself.
Now the police are angry. How about the regular citizen who gets a GPS slapped on his/her car BY the cops supposedly under suspicion of a crime that was or MIGHT be committed.
What are the police afraid of. If they do not have anything to hide this should no be a problem. No one likes surveillance, police are officers of the court get used to it. They should be under on the job full time video surveillance. The people have the right to know what public servants are doing.
it would prevent overcrowding at the donut shop
GPS is a good management tool in that you're sending resources where they need to go and catching the bad cops where there shouldn't be.
The good cops have nothing to worry about.
The bad cops may want to start thinking of another career... or start lubing up their rectums for when they're finally sent to prison.
It's quite common to see 3 or 4 cars in Centre D'achats Forest's parking lot at night doing nothing instead of patrolling (which they are paid to do).
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
I spent about a year as a contractor for a UK Police Force in 2001 and they already had tracking in their patrol cars then. From a technical point of view it worked reliably most of the time with the occasional blip. It helped the police supervisors and control rooms have an instant overall view of where resources were located. Cars were shown on a map overlay with their call signs and info of what call they were dealing with. It was linked to the command and control system so when a car was sent on an emergency call it automatically wrote an entry on the call log when the car arrived at the scene. Very useful as evidence in car chases. It was accurate enough to see what lane the car was driving in. And yes, it was used to successfully prosecute officers for speeding when not on emergency calls. My point of view on this is that every police back office worker has everything they enter onto any police system date stamped and recorded against their user ID, why should patrol officers be exempt from scrutiny?
If you're much younger than me, you won't understand this comment.