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.'"
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?
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.
"Why were you in the alley for 45 minutes?"
"I had an informant who didn't want to be seen talking"
"Oh, okay."
I don't see the problem here. You're on the job, so you should be doing your job. If a supervisor wants to question the way you do it and monitor your movements, fine. Let them... then they have no excuse for any poor performance, because they've been watching it the whole time, right?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
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.
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.
I wonder how many of those same cops would be THRILLED to be able to track every *civilian* without their consent?
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Exactly. Every supervisor I've had for the past decade has known that I read Slashdot on the job. They also know that I deliver good results on time, and work extra without hesitation if needed. It should always be the results that matter.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
On the other hand we shouldn't forget that coppers are also persons with a right to privacy and that the ones who pick up drunks, get called to petty disputes and car accidents are notoriously underappreciated, underpaid and overworked with a high risk for burn-out. They do deserve our appreciation for that.
No, they are not. They are agents of the state, and the state has no right of privacy. When they're off duty, you're absolutely right - these GPS trackers should not be implanted in their bodies, sewn into their street clothes, or placed on their personal vehicles. However, when they're on duty, they are employees and state actors and have no right to privacy. If they don't like it, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
But we also need PROPER ways to protect the individual rights of the coppers.
Government is in a special category of accountability because it has a monopoly on the use of violence in our society. If a government employee is on the job, he's on the record, no exceptions.
Of course, when he's off the job he has every expectation of privacy of a private individual, including not being tracked by GPS devices.
If he doesn't like "on the job, on the record", there are thousands of other ways to be employed, including private security (which may or may not include GPS tracking of employees as part of the employment contract). Our employment contract with the government insists on accountability "at all times".
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
OK, guys, no cruisers within 20 minutes from here - let's hit them.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
So I'd say that yes, we should do any type of recording including video, sound and GPS data. But we also need PROPER ways to protect the individual rights of the coppers. If the GPS data is needed for statistical analysis then we should store it anonymously and in bulk with no way to tie it back to individual officers.
I'm all for that.
Right after they ensure the same things for the citizens they monitor. A protection that - at the moment - is sorely lacking and the government is showing great reluctance - and even opposition - to codifying. The various law-enforcement (and other unrelated) agencies are grabbing every bit of information about its citizens and compiling massive dossiers about each and every one of us, and despite claims that it is all just "anonymous metadata" it has been shown how easily this information can be tied together to get data about specific individuals. There needs to be some protection against this sort of Hoovering.*
Until that happens, I not only want every police officer monitored every second he is on duty, but every politician too. We've given them great power over us; it's time to ensure that it is being properly used. If they feel that this sort of intrusion into /their/ lives is too much, they can damn well be sure the same can be true of ours.
We're the bosses of this country. They're just the petty clerks we've hired to do the dirty work (although it sometimes seems the political caste thinks things are the other way around). That sort of authority ought to get us /something/!
* I named this tactic both after the vacuum and the unscrupulous FBI administrator who utilized similar, albeit low-tech, methods to do the same; clever, huh? ;-)
Dark Alley. 45 minutes. "Informants."
Uh huh. I think they misspelled prostitutes.
And second, police on patrol (the article said cruisers). Do police detectives (not the type that write tickets) have cruisers? Idk, I'm no expert. But I know ticket writing police ain't taking down drug rings and shit. They patrol the streets. They don't have "informants".
I used to hang out with a woman who was a police dispatcher in a fairly major city. She had to know where the cops were at all times so she could call the closest one to any incident that may occur.
She said she did not know of one cop in town that wasn't banging a stripper or a hooker on the side. Most strippers and call girls will have "their" cop who would watch their back and look the other way for a little quid pro quo.
So yeah, having the fact that they park in back of the local "gentleman's" club for a half hour twice a week as public record might cause them some concern.
Underpaid? They work 20 years and are then effectively made millionaires on the backs of the citizens. How much would you have to put aside to retire at 42 and be guaranteed an inflation adjusted income for the rest of your life? Police officers are very very far from underpaid.
This will just nudge you to take the robbery first, the doughnut second.
Do you really think that's what this is about? I doubt it. Having the location of every cop in town will be very useful to those in charge, but not for the reasons you think. The guys on the ground aren't the only ones subject to corruption and malice. The mob will have an inside guy that will be able to tell them exactly where every cop is at any given moment.
I'd rather have cops eating doughnuts than having the mob knowing with absolute certainty that they are not eating doughnuts at the diversionary shooting on the other side of town. In fact, if I wanted to start intimidating cops, there's nothing better than knowing their exact location at all times.
Don't let your schadenfreude lead you to rally for something stupid. This sounds like a divide and conquer technique to me... "They're watching you!! Serves them right! Let's watch them now too." The correct course of action is to restore the rights of the group who lost them, not take the rights of everyone else away.
On the off chance that you went into law enforcement to serve the public in a very brave and selfless way it will be pounded out of you in short order or you will no longer work for the department.
Rule 1. Don't rat out fellow officers.
Rule 2. Don't make them look bad.
Rule 3. When your benefits are threatened make sure crime goes up.
Rule 4. There are the police and everyone else.
Fuck the police. They are badge wearing gang bangers who murder people and get away with it.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The majority of cops are good or try to do good.
Ex-cop here, most are crooked in the way we would think. Most commit felonies on a semi regular basis. This is true in big cities or rich suburbs. People believe that its just a few bad actors, its the entire culture. Thats why I quit after several years. The last of the good cops retired by 2003ish (vietnam war era guys, who were trained by the ww2 guys) and were replaced by insane children with no guidance. They were told their job was Law Enforcement, not policing. Just because you know a cop and he is a good person in your eyes does not mean he does not engage in illegal and immoral behavior, they all do and all know to keep their mouth shut about it. The first rule of law enforcement is not to talk about law enforcement, especially with outsiders. Nothing I see on the news surprises me, it will only get worse until cops start getting put in prison. The only saving grace is the unlimited statute of limitations on homicides, lets hope the political will of future generations will find justice.