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?
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.....
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.
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.
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.
This is where you pick the dark back street behind the donut shop.
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.
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.
Brings a whole new meaning to "do not track..."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If a cop typically spends a couple hours out of an eight-hour shift courting informants, and it's getting good results, then bravo.
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?
The cops aren't the ones repeating that ancient fable.
Wrong. Many cops do. In fact, most people do.
False, on several points. Every time one of those "masterminds" pushes some abusive big-brother shit, police unions invariably support it, to make them "more effective."
Plus, it was well-established years ago that "just following orders" (being "pawns") doesn't excuse evil and corrupt behavior.
It is perfectly reasonable to hold both the corrupt leadership, and those who spread their corruption through the populate, in the same anger and contempt.
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).
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.
Nonsense. Giving the order means nothing if nobody is there to execute them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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).
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
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.
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 ;-)
I am the previous poster, and if you think I was posting to slashdot to "accomplish anything," then either you're delusional, or you think I am. It's a social site, and I made a social comment expressing my lack of sympathy and distaste for their hypocrisy, not to try to affect some sweeping social change*.
*that's apparently what fifteen year old "feminists" on tumblr are for.
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.
Just anecdotal, but when I was a volunteer firefighter the local police had the combination to the fire stations so they could go in, use the bathroom, and catch up on paperwork. So very often I'd find a cop sitting in the day room, feet up on the coffee table, soda in one hand TV remote in the other and no paperwork in sight. Every time I would think "I pay this guy's salary with my tax dollars." Also, just like dash cameras and audio recordings, this data could be used to back up a police officer's story if he is being accused of something, or to pinpoint his location if he needs help and can't radio. So I wholeheartedly agree, for so many reasons, that they should be tracked when on the clock. I'd also be okay with a system that uploads the dash camera video so that nothing unfortunate happens to the data.
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!
why would cops think that they would be excluded in a police state?
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
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.
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"?
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
While I'm all against abusive big-brother type monitoring, how else do you expect this to work? Initially there is no clear defining line saying when a type of monitoring becomes unacceptable. In order for the courts to establish that line, one side needs to argue to them that it is acceptable, while the other argues that it is not. If law enforcement doesn't argue the pro side, who will?
I think it's their duty to argue how much the monitoring will improve their effectiveness. And it's the duty of civil libertarians to argue the chilling effects of such monitoring. The courts can listen to both and decide if the benefits outweigh the costs.
The alternative is to establish geminidomino as dictator and let him unilaterally decide what is and isn't acceptable, without giving those for or against certain policies an opportunity to present arguments in favor of their position.
Well, they shouldn't be worried if they have nothing to hide, right? Right?
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'?
While I'm all against abusive big-brother type monitoring, how else do you expect this to work? Initially there is no clear defining line saying when a type of monitoring becomes unacceptable. In order for the courts to establish that line, one side needs to argue to them that it is acceptable, while the other argues that it is not. If law enforcement doesn't argue the pro side, who will?
And then they complain when it gets pointed at them. That would be what makes them hypocrites.
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.
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.
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
Because cops, unlike damn near every other group of professional individuals, cannot ever take a break during their shift.
Right?
My own anecdotes:
I have a cow-orker who is lazy, takes enough smoke breaks to go through most of a pack during his never-more-than-8-hour day, and is of mind to time his every action on a jobsite so that he can "finish out his day" at a time and place that best suits him and his paycheck. He spends at least an hour of his workday day in the bathroom. Sometimes he goes to the bathroom for several minutes before he leaves for a job, stops for several minutes on the way to a job, and uses the bathroom again once he gets to a job.
He's such a lazy of shit that he doesn't even own a personal vehicle in a small city that is big enough that it absolutely requires one to drive to get anything done: He hauls his family around in his vinyl-covered, logo-encrusted corporate-owned work van on evenings and weekends, running errands, getting groceries, going to church, visiting family, etc.
Meanwhile, I have a friend who is a paramedic EMT for a private company. He works 48 hour shifts, and when he leaves the station for any reason, he takes a squad ("ambulance") with him so that even when he's allegedly enjoying his brief respite of personal time ("lunch"), he can still respond as quickly as possible if the shit hits the fan and more help is needed than is cooling their heels back at the station.
He leaves the squad running in the parking lot, because simply: The squad is -always- either running, or it is on shore power. (In this way, the squad is either ready to go immediately when it is out-and-about, or there is another squad a few steps away in the event that one fails to start at the station.)
The lazy cow-orker has a profound fondness for complaining at great length at just how unprofessional this behavior is, whenever he sees a squad parked at a diner or in the parking lot of a grocery store. "If he's on the clock, he should be working, at the station. And he shouldn't drive an am-bu-lance around unless he's on a call. It's just unprofessional."
I say to him: "Cow-orker, I see your van parked all over the place when I know you're not working, and you take half a day of breaks every day. What makes you so special, and them so indentured? And wouldn't you like more potential squads available in town, than fewer squads?"
He doesn't get it. I'm not sure you get it, either.
Meh, I say. Programmers, sysadmins, IT folk, telco guys, carpenters, plumbers, cops, paramedics, astronauts, soldiers, whatever: We're all human. And we all need some personal time in the course of a busy work day, else our work unilaterally fucking sucks.
Meanwhile, most cops are union. The singular union contract I've ever had had specified that I get two paid, uninterrupted 15-minute breaks and a lunch of at least 30 minutes in an 8-hour day, but I can't imagine it reading much different for any other union...
In rejoinder, so what if a cop uses some of his time in the day room at a fire house? Isn't that what day rooms are for? (Hell, -I've- done this, and I'm not a cop, a paramedic, or a fireman. I just happened to be working at a firehouse, and I just happened to think it was the right time to take a load off of my feet for a short bit. So I put my 50 cents into the coffee can in the fridge, grabbed a Coke, and found a couch to relax in and maybe I even did *gasp* put my feet up on a well-worn coffee table. After I was done with my break, I went back to work. *shrug*)
Kid-proof tablet..
Again, this is just anecdotal.. The cars were at the fire station a lot, not just from time to time. There weren't that many cars in the area. There were only 2 cars assigned to that sector and the officers were rotated between sectors periodically. And they were there for more than 15 minutes at a shot. Just one example, the cop was there when we went on an aid call and the same cop was there when we got back; still no paperwork in sight. So unless he's taking a 15 minute break every hour, I think he was there for the whole time. We dealt with the cops a lot at the fire department. I even once asked a sergeant "what do cops do all day when it's quiet?" just because of the situations I observed. The response was patrol, public relations, and traffic enforcement (and there were areas in my town in drastic need of patrol) and when I pressed him he said, and I remember this clearly, "they should never have nothing to do."
And to your lazy coworker example... My observations are similar to yours. I'm sure it isn't everyone. My father in law was an "operating engineer" which is union speak for heavy equipment operator. The union kept the ranks artificially low so that they could get the guys more OT. I remember him refusing to take jobs unless he could get a guarantee of OT (not work, but pay), which was calculated on a daily basis rather than weekly. The contractors had to give in because these were public works contracts and they were mandated to use the union. He would brag about all the time he spent taking breaks on the clock so that he could extend the job later into the evening when he got into OT pay. And since these were mostly public works projects, it was at taxpayer expense. The contractors dare not complain because then none of the union guys would work for them, or they would slow down the work. It was a good deal for the operators... the union held the health insurance and the pension, so they could jump between employers at will.
The full time paid firefighters worked 24 hour shifts, but the cops worked 8 hours in the sector, plus an hour or two for whatever administrative tasks they needed to do at the precinct. Funny that I rarely saw cops at the manned fire stations. But like your ambulance crew friend, the fire fighters had a union contract that specified that they had day hours where scheduled work was to be done, e.g. maintenance, inspections, physical training, professional training, public outreach, etc... After 5pm they were on their own time unless there was a call, with the caveat that they had to be at the station. But that's working a 24 hour shift. The cop gets to go home when he's done with work.
I'm sure they would rather be chasing bad guys than doing mundane tasks. But mundane tasks are part of most jobs (like placing the decimal point in the correct place). Take the firefighters, they liked training, responding to calls, PT, but they didn't like maintenance. They did it anyway because it was part of the job. At my job I set, with my boss, specific goals each year and am measured against them. So he doesn't really keep close tabs on my time. Unfortunately we don't have good performance metrics for police. The ticket writing and the like isn't really a good measure. If we had good metrics I would say leave them alone, and only address the ones with performance issues. But we don't have a good way of doing that. Suggestions?
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.
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.
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.
Ok, I see more where you're coming from now.
I work with cops, and their administrators (The Sheriff, The Chief, The Captain, etc), quite a lot since I work on dispatch consoles and radios and cruisers and fire engines and everything that goes along with all of that.
Most of our volunteer stations around here are minimal: Usually a bigger kitchen than one might expect, a small watch room, and a combination meeting/day room that really isn't a very fun place to relax. (Paid stations with full-time staff are very different, but we don't yet have any combination paid/volunteer stations around here).
So, maybe due to circumstances of the stations around here, I don't see cops hanging out at fire houses much.
What I do see: When I have to spend quality time in dispatch (any full-time dispatch center) solving some problem or other, or just chilling waiting to for an intermittent problem to either show up or not show up, there's often a man with a gun doing nothing but watching TV and chatting with dispatchers.
These are all small-ish police/sheriff departments, similar (I think) to what you're complaining about. In some departments, it is easy to note the box of un-served warrants just sitting there doing nothing.....
But it's the same with dispatchers, who browse Facebook for hours on end when they've got a binder full of already-assigned busywork for their long periods of interminable downtime.
And whenever present a problem that is actually caused by bored dispatchers, the administrator is all "They shouldn't ever be bored!"
And any other day, there I am, in dispatch, doing what I do. And there's said-administrator and between two and four bored dispatchers, and maybe a cop or two, maybe even a sergeant of a Chief or the Sheriff. The Facebooks are being browsed, Ebay is being perused, Youtube is being laughed at, cable TV is being watched......
If that's not clear, allow me to be concise: The administrators say one thing ("they should always be busy!") while condoning another thing entirely.
At one point in one particular dispatch center, they'd even taken to watching movies with a portable copy of VLC that was happy to run on an XP guest account, on the 50" plasma monitor that I installed for security cameras.
But, back to my original premise: Is it really so different in this profession than any other?
For my own personal anecdote: I considered myself a pretty good employee when there were things to do when I worked as a full-time hourly IT goon, in that I didn't have a TV in my office (unlike other folks in the company) and I didn't spend a few hours each day gossiping noisily with those at the desks around me.
But I did spend a substantial amount of time reading Slashdot when there weren't things that needed done immediately, scavenging old hardware to experiment with in ways that were usually only useful to me, and generally being non-productive. So, *shrug*: I can't say that I was any better than a cop or a dispatcher when it came to keeping busy: It is the bane of the hourly employee to be inherently more lazy than could ever be considered desirable.
Can you honestly say that you have never been so-afflicted? That you've never tried to do as little as possible just so you can go home at the end of the day, not be totally drained, and still get your usual paycheck?
I can say that I am more productive in a paid hour than I used to be, because I employ myself these days and when I'm working on a thing, I want to get that thing -done- so I can relax at home.
But at this point, I'm being paid multiples more per hour of work, which is itself its own brand of fucked-upedness: I now get to slack most of the time, since it is -my- time. I set my own schedule, or (typically) none at all.
I never have to hold a desk down in order to make money, so I don't ever have to come up creative with ways to pass time while at work, or intentionally slack just to "finish out my day" at a particular time an
Kid-proof tablet..
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.