Slashdot Mirror
LA Police Officers Suspected of Tampering With Their Monitoring Systems
An anonymous reader writes "An internal audit conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in March revealed that 'dozens of the [voice] transmitters worn by officers in Southeast Division were missing or damaged.' In the summer of 2013, this same division was found to have mysteriously lost 45% of the antennae placed on their cars to pick up the signals sent by their voice transmitters. The Southeast Division of the LAPD covers an area that has 'historically been marred by mistrust and claims of officer abuse.' For decades, the LAPD had been closely monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice, but a federal judge in 2013 decided to end that practice after being assured by the LAPD and city officials that the LAPD sufficiently monitors itself via dash-cams and voice transmitters. A formal investigation is currently being conducted to determine whether or not police officers intentionally subverted mandatory efforts to monitor and record their patrols."
For any officer found with damaged or missing recording equipment, suspend without pay or confine to desk jockey. Unacceptable to claim equipment is broken or doesn't work so the policy goes to the wayside.
There should be strict rules in place that any equipment malfunctions or damage must be reported as soon as reasonably possible, or sever penalties will result. Of course, the police union would fight this tooth and nail.
Anyone remember the police beating case in Maryland where the dash cams of ALL SEVEN police cars on the scene simultaneously malfunctioned? Accountability is not a thing many officers appreciate.
Who will watch the watchers? It's clear that "nobody" is the answer the watchers would prefer...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I wonder if the damage was reported and tracked over time, and if you could correlate this with who was assigned the equipment immediately prior? The results would probably paint a good heat map against the list of officers as to what subset was behind the damage.
It is possible people are vandalizing the cars (in general and though the public would vandalize ALL the antennas, not just one). The simple solution is make the officers report any damage and fill out paperwork indicating the cause. If they go a day with broken equipment unreported they're suspended without pay for day the first time with a day added per occurrence and fired after 5. If it's a repeated occurrence with an officer they should be monitored in secret by IA to observe if the officer is doing the damage themselves and if they are they should be fired and prosecuted for damaging government property. If the cars are being vandalized by the public they need better antennas that are vandal resistant.
Ha. Please find me someone with more contempt and disdain for the law than.... law enforcement! Shocked they would be breaking rules. What's next?
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Cops and criminals come from the same backgrounds...
From TFA: "Because cars in the Southeast Division had been equipped with cameras since 2010 and different shifts of officers use the same car each day, officials decided an investigation into the missing antennas would have been futile, according to Smith and Capt. Phil Tingirides, the commanding officer of the Southeast Division."
I do not believe that this is possible. Given the number of officers, and the number of damaged cars, and the number of undamaged cars, and the log book, most of us could tell you who the culprits are before we get through our first 16oz cup of coffee.
Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.
That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.
Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.
March marred by mysteriously missing misconduct monitoring machines.
Did you think that the most corrupt, malevolent police force in the country would just roll over and let something intended to make them accountable actually do its job?
I'm pretty sure that people who work in retail are basically on camera all the time, certainly when they in the public areas of the store. In private, of course they should not be monitored. Unless, perhaps, you count ankle monitors that some convicted felons wear as an alternative to being in prison.
If you were in England, you would be on some of the estimated 6 million surveillance cameras: 70,000 operated by the police, 300,000+ by schools, 13,000 by the London Tube, etc., and most of the rest private individuals and corporations.
Given the track record of police abuses in the U.S., and the dramatic [fall in complaints about police behaviour](http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force), plus the usefulness of having on-the-spot video evidence against criminals, I would support mandatory cameras for all of them.
Tell that to someone who works in a casino, or a bank. Sometimes the cameras are there to protect the employee, sometimes the employer, sometimes both.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I'll bet whoever came up with that was one malicious motherfucker.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You won't get a lot of sympathy around here. The Slashdot groupthink is that "the bad officers give the other .01% a bad name."
I've long wondered why this is. I used to think it meant we had much more than our fair share of potheads.
But I think there's something more to it than that. Anyway, it's just another one of the unthinking prejudices of this self-proclaimed rational crowd.
I'm shocked, shocked that the LAPD would try to hide their behavior so they could keep acting like asshats.
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
LAPD is notorious for corruption and officer abuse. What is *your* plan to fix that?
Not that the LAPD is playing fast and loose with the equipment (okay that this level of poor behavior is being allowed to continue is inconceivable) but, that the equipment isn't self monitoring and reporting. I mean really, they are under the watchful (and apparently sleepy) eye of the DoJ and no one thought to add a monitoring feature? The police have some of the most wired cars around and the tech to push or pull, at least, daily status reports on the health and activity of the recording systems wasn't included?
Wow, even WOW, or OMFGWOW are not adequate to express my disdain.
"Attitude reflects leadership, captain." Julius Campbell (Wood Harris), Remember the Titans (2000)
Here is a simple rule. If a cop doesn't have an active recording device then he isn't a cop; he is just some guy waving a gun and threatening people. Also invalidate any evidence that a "cop" gathers while not on video and audio. So if a cop searches someone and "finds" drugs and there is no video then it didn't happen; that combined with the stop and frisk being considered a mugging these cops would be polishing the lenses and making sure the equipment was in perfect working order.
Pretty much every retail employee on the planet already has to deal with this, but without the ability to have a mysterious hardware failure at (in)convenient times.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.
When I was in the Marine Corps, we said that about our officers. I'm sure many others have used that joke.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Maybe the first time, or the second. But when there's a pattern of obvious and blatant refusal of compliance, suspicion should certainly direct one's course of action. How else to find the truth?
sig: sauer
Nothing about my day job provides for use of force, arrest, and charging people with criminal acts which could lead to their incarceration.
Given the history of abuses from the LAPD (and lots of other PDs) ... the stakes are much higher, and we've passed the point where we can just assume all police are honest.
So, you'll forgive me if I don't go all "boo hoo" about the level of tracking being applied to them. We see plenty enough stories which indicate cops can often have very little regard (or understanding) of the law.
Quite frankly, I don't believe there's enough tracking of police officers.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If you work in retail or banking, you do. That was the case at my last job. Why is it recording gas station attendants who have the authority to do absolutely nothing is ok, but recording police officers who have the authority to shoot somebody if need be isn't?
How is the person who made the error supposed to learn if nobody corrects him/her? Yes, pedantry gets annoying when done to excess, but being seen to be illiterate just because your peers were afraid to mention your mistake is cruel. If you were walking around with your fly open, would you be OK with everyone around you just assume that you're a pervert? Wouldn't you prefer that somebody mention that you should X-Y-Z until you get in the habit of checking your fly before you step out in public?
I know that if I were to remove an antenna from a police cruiser that I would be in jail, quickly, likely bruised and beaten during the trip too. Why should it be different for the officers? Criminal vandalism charges, destruction of public property, obstruction, etc. etc. let the charges flow. Oh, wait, these are police, they're never (or at least very rarely) convicted of criminal charges for their actions, sorry for wasting your time....
Who will watch the watchers?
In theory, that is the job of the free press.
I neither agree nor disagree with your point because there is an unclear factor to me -- nature of work. The nature of police work in this case is similar to a field work (outside the office) which is very difficult to have a good quality control system. Of course, you would need to give a lee way and at the same time has a certain trust level to these people. For an office work, it is a lot different because the employer would have more control on quality check. So the monitoring may or may not be a bad quality control system for the police.
Actually, I hear he was a bit of an idiot.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.
Well done sir! [sounds of applause]
Enigma
You won't get a lot of sympathy around here. The Slashdot groupthink is that "the bad officers give the other .01% a bad name."
If a single officer misbehaves and commits criminal acts and this goes on for a long time without any other officer intervening, are the other officers doing their job?
I'm not saying that there aren't any good police officers in that district but it certainly seems like they are in a such small minority that they can't stand up to the bad ones.
Perhaps it would be more fair to say that "the bad officers give the other 49% a bad name?"
I still have a hard time believing that a good officer would enjoy working under such circumstances. They have probably quit or relocated.
And here is one of the reponses to that monitoring .
And Absolute Power is kinda nifty...
It's amazing what happens to some people when they get a taste of power over others. Little wonder why there are cases of extortion and racketeering that happen by police officers in many cities. Once they get a taste, they're hooked, and it escalates.
Why is it that many an off-duty police officer acts like a total a$$-hat, but pops a badge out of their butt when confronted by the proper authority to curb such behavior? They carry on as if they are Allowed to do the things they, themselves are required to prevent. After all, such things are Fun! At least, to some people...
I'd cite examples, but there'd be info-burn from the Google results page...
How many people would tamper with monitoring devices at their work, if they were under such constant scrutiny? Of course, there are laws preventing such devices in many places at work, such as washrooms, changerooms, and similar places. Needless to say why many employees tend to hang out there as much as possible.
Bottom line is this: People in authority should Expect to be monitored for abuse! Gone are the days of power (on certain levels of civil service) putting you beyond reproach. that was then. This is now. It's been called the Information Age for a reason, folks.
Welcome to the Glass House, Mr. Ford. Don't get too comfortable.
Mayors of large, world-class cities have been getting away with things for a very long time in the past. Mostly because they knew when and how to do such things so as not to draw too much attention to themselves.Others see the office as goal, and a place where they have free reign to do whatever they want. Chances are, they were doing things before they had the office, but were simply emboldened to the point of carelessness by the authority they found themselves in. Can you imagine the scandals that would happen if a Mayors' Office was subjected to such constant monitoring? Don't get me wrong! Mayors of such cities have a Lot of things they have to deal with on a daily basis, that are best kept behind closed doors for public safety. Shame the crime-lords of the modern era don't suffer from nearly the same level of accountability as their elected counterparts...
So, bottom line here: If you had such monitoring devices where you work, would you tamper with them for any reason? Would it be privacy, or some other reason that motivates you?
What level of "privacy" do you expect from your work environment?
Just Sayin'
It seems to have been fixed:
Instead, warnings went out at roll-call meetings throughout South Bureau, and new rules were put in place requiring officers to document that both antennas were in place at the beginning and end of each shift. To guard against officers removing the antennas during their shifts, Tingirides said he requires patrol supervisors to make unannounced checks on cars.
"We took the situation very seriously. But because the chances of determining who was responsible was so low we elected to move on," Smith said, adding that it cost the department about $1,500 to replace all the antennas.
Since the new protocols went into place, only one antenna has been found missing, Smith said.
...do not rely on monitoring system that treats a complete lack of information as a complete absence of incidents.
Pretty much every retail employee on the planet already has to deal with this, but without the ability to have a mysterious hardware failure at (in)convenient times.
This. There are cameras in my office, if I went around cutting the wires to each camera I would no longer have a job and would probably be brought up on criminal charges. Our security department also has the ability to monitor my computer at any time. People in tons of different professions are monitored while they are working and many are tested to determine if they are doing company-prohibited activities while not at work. There is no reason why police should be excluded from the same kind of surveillance. In fact, many people would argue that there is a more compelling interest in monitoring police than almost any other profession.
Enigma
As long as they can still hit the drive-thrus / fly-thrus, they'll be fine.
These law enforcement officers are experiencing the same thing we have been in the wake of the NSA documents. Being watched all the time is wrong even if you are doing nothing wrong.
Anti-authoritarians think people should not be watched all the time, even though it would mean catching a few extra criminals. Law and order advocates think police should not be watched all the time, even though it would mean catching a few extra officers who abuse their position. If we believe that people intrinsically want to do good, the truth is they are both right.
The premise of the United States experiment is that people can and should be trusted to do good most of the time -- despite the real risk and cost of doing so -- and should only be watched when it is justified. Merely being a police officer does not mean you are suspected of being a dirty cop. Merely being a person with one or another political viewpoint does not mean you are suspected of being a terrorist. Merely being a person from a certain socioeconomic class does not mean you are supected of committing a crime.
In America, we presume innocence. That is not just a standard of the justice process, it means we trust our citizens -- whether acting as individuals, political activists, or police officers -- to do good. We believe in our citizens even when we are on opposite sides of a fence, and we know they believe in our society even when their expression of that belief differs from ours. When we have reasonable suspicion that they have violated that trust, we investigate them -- but not before.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's potentially helpful to correct people gently. Far less so to try to call them out on a mistake. And how exactly is anyone supposed to expand their vocabulary if they limit themselves to only the words and phrases they've already completely mastered? That's not how language works. Hell, that's not how learning pretty much *anything* works.
Language is learned through its use, misuse, and subsequent correction, starting with mimicking single-syllable sounds shortly after birth. As for not writing things you've only ever heard spoken - do you really keep a mental record of the source of all the words you've learned? I certainly don't. I seem to store words as an interlinked combination of sound and spelling. If I only hear it spoken the spelling may be off. I read a lot so more often I only see it spelled and the pronunciation is off. Until such time as I speak the word to (or hear it spoken by) someone who knows the proper pronunciation and they correct me, and I update my vocabulary with the anomalous pronunciation. And as best I can tell that's pretty normal. Why would should I artificially limit my vocabulary simply because I'm not 100% certain of its accuracy? And why would I want anyone else to do so? Talk about a lot of boring, simplistic conversations.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Aren't the camera videos automatically uploaded when the vehicle returns at the end of shift or when they return to the station? When I was on juries with video evidence they explained how the chain of custody was maintained so we would believe it to be an accurate depiction of events. The video files are kept for a while of evidence, so it would seem to a simple matter to see when an antenna was broken by seeing when the video degraded. As a bonus, some videos are really funny and would be you tube hits or make a great reality series. I mean, you'd think a police force would have at least one person who understands how to run an investigation. Unless, of course, you really don't want to pick a fight with your officers and their union and just want this to go away.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That's fair, I just know I wouldn't like it, and I also know what the usual /. opinion of surveillance is. Some jobs or activities probably require it, but I'm not sure that pervasive big bothering is the optimal solution for police misconduct.
As I read these responses, I'm forced to wonder: would any of the posters tolerate having every spoken word recorded by The Boss throughout their shift? Even one of you?
I understand the history here, the past bad deeds from members of this particular police force,. Nevertheless, these voice recorders sound to me like an outrageous invasion of the person of officers who individually have been accused of and found guilty of nothing at all.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
GP has it right. The bad officers give the other 0.001% a bad name.
He's wrong that it's incorrect. About 0.001% of cops will actually do something about a crooked cop in their ranks. The rest are crooked.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This is the preferred solution. After all that training, once an officer proves his eagerness to randomly break a few legs, it just won't do to let them go. That good LAPD conditioning has been disseminated throughout the country as these "rogue" cops take their skills and fucked-up attitudes out to rural America, the better to squelch any nascent bonds developing with the innocent citizens they intend to "protect and serve".
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
"How would you like to have your every move and word recorded and transmitted by your employer every second of every working day?"
Well consider that's exactly what happens for me and many others every day at work, it's obviously something people can cope with.
"I don't condone police abuse but this level of intrusion seems extreme to me."
You seem a bit out of touch. LOTS of people have every word recorded while they are working. LOTS of people that have far less opportunity to abuse their position than a policeman does.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This isn't surveillance of a private individual; this is monitoring the performance of someone doing their job; a job they are paid to do, a job they can opt out of, a job they have incurred obligations with regard to. It's perfectly legitimate.
Further, these people are given extraordinary power over citizens; the saw "with great power comes great responsibility" pretty much covers why monitoring them makes good sense from the citizen's POV. Even if we didn't know these particular officers have demonstrated that their cadre is well supplied with lawbreakers, and that more generally, they all are dishonest enough to observe the "thin blue line", it would still make sense to monitor them, just for their own assurance that specious claims against them could trivially be refuted. The fact that these idiots are intentionally killing that benefit by incapacitating the monitoring capability is a strong indicator as to why they're doing it: Almost certainly, something else is going on they are afraid will be seen -- add their known history of malfeasance, and we've got good reason to insist those cameras and audio recorders run though the entire shift, on every individual.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Are you trying to say that a police officer isn't different from non-police citizens?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Is being constantly surveilled really the problem, or...
Is being surveilled by people who will nail you to the wall with any minor infraction they can drum up, all of which any one person cannot possibly be aware of at once, the problem?
And that it has been shown that we somehow have no practical accountability for such positions of authority.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
not've used
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.
Anyone who has privileges that allow him to have a potentially severe impact on the lives, freedom and physical integrity of everyone else needs to be checked to ensure he does only execute this privilege for the benefit of those he swore to protect and not to his personal gain or to feed his ego.
I am no fan of surveillance. But if you are handling power that threatens the life or liberty of thousands of others, at the very least I want to be sure that you cannot abuse that power. Otherwise, please hand over the keys and codes to some nukes. You can trust me, I won't abuse that power.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Easy. Everyone caught taking bribes is sent to the same jail that houses the people he caught.
Trust me, the incentive to take bribes plummets instantly when you're facing certain death.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I agree people cope with it; do you think it's good thing and people should just cope with it?
If I only hear it spoken the spelling may be off. I read a lot so more often I only see it spelled and the pronunciation is off.
That's a bug in the English language :-)
Every retail employee on the planet has to wear a wire and have every second of their conversations recorded and stored during their working hours? Citation really needed for that one.
Of course it adds a level of stress, but as long as it ceases when I clock out for the day, and there is a legitimate need, I just figure it's one of the reasons I am getting paid. That's why we call it work, not play, you take on stress and you get paid.
If I were a cop, you know, frankly I think I would probably be in favor of making certain that I and every coworker was being recorded every minute we were on shift. To protect myself as much as to protect the public.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
So, like we already have with prison rape, you suggest further decoupling sentences from justice?
We're trying to make the world a less corrupt and barbaric place. Hyperbole and hysteria don't further that cause.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Yeah, one in 100,000.
Hyperbole FTW.
I could see the protection in having my "official interactions" recorded, and I can get behind that in theory too, but I'd still hesitate to give a complete thumbs up to the "you have to wear a wire continuously" level of intrusion. It really seems excessive. Perhaps if there were assurances that legal barriers existed on who/how the data could be accessed then it would be a lot more palatable.
my company monitors everything I do and say when I'm at work. Most do. If you think yours doesn't you're either kidding yourself or working for yourself.
And why should you have an expectation of privacy regarding anything you do while you're on the job that pertains to the job?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm always hearing how my personal privacy is the most important freedom I've got, meanwhile my wages have been declining for 30 years. You never hear the Koch brothers complaining about their personal privacy. How much do you know about them? What do you suppose would happen to you if you tried to find out?
Money is freedom. Economic security is freedom. You're not free so long as somebody can deprive you of food/shelter/health care/etc.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
are you suggesting that an issue might not be simple, and that simple common sense, gut feelings and ideology might not produce the best results?
:(.
I kid, I kid, but good post. I guess what I wish people would take away is that the world is a complex place and we really have to think about what we're doing, why we're doing it. There's no magic set of principles that will get us to the right answer
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I could see the protection in having my "official interactions" recorded, and I can get behind that in theory too, but I'd still hesitate to give a complete thumbs up to the "you have to wear a wire continuously" level of intrusion. It really seems excessive. Perhaps if there were assurances that legal barriers existed on who/how the data could be accessed then it would be a lot more palatable.
If a cop has a uniform on (wired up) and is driving around in a cruiser interacting with the public, then every interaction is an "official interaction". My small talk at work can get me in trouble if I say the wrong things, why would an officers small talk while on the job be protected?
Is your small talk recorded and can people review it at any time? If so I recommend a new job.
We are? Sorry, the US prison practice had me fooled.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, I wasn't including them in my "we". I was referring to conscientious non-psychopathic humans!
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
That word means 'Peace Officer'
The goal is keeping the peace... it is not LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (LEO)
This is where the role of POLICE and many Sheriff departments have gone off the reservation.
Fire departments have only limited roles in fire prevention.... EMTs do not preemptively save lives by throwing people in jail....
We have allowed the tail to wag the dog as far as policing is concerned.
No blood, no fowl. If someone has not called the cops they should not have a role.
By all means at the time someone calls for police let there be hell, fire and brimstone called forth to protect the public and seek the criminals.
Where there is no victim there is no crime..... The state is a victim only when it loses assets or legal claim to assets. Fuck the crimes where the State suffers no loss....