Slashdot Mirror
San Jose Police Apologize For Hiding Drone Program, Halts Until Further Review
v3rgEz (125380) writes As part of MuckRock's Drone Census, the San Jose Police twice denied having a drone in public records requests — until the same investigation turned up not only a signed bid for a drone but also a federal grant giving them money for it. Now, almost a full year after first denying they had a drone, the department has come clean and apologized for hiding the program, promising more transparency and to pursue federal approval for the program, which the police department had, internally, claimed immunity from previously.
People should be going to prison for such deceit. We don't hold our officials accountable.
They make no mention of having been clearly non-responsive to the FOI request. The FOI asked for "Acquisition documents" that they hadn't got one yet doesn't get them out from having been trying to get one. And the excuse of "well we didn't know what the other department was doing" fails, the whole point of a FOI request is for them to find out of someone has the documents in any of their departments. The real problem is that these FOI laws lack meaningful penalties for failure to properly respond so no one ever does.
-jon
So if a police department "doesnt have a drone" and someone finds a way to interrupt the signal of said nonexistent drone, leading to it's destruction, there wouldnt be any repercussions, right?
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Be careful.
Even when they say they turn theirs off, they don't.
Seattle PD turned theirs off a year ago, but sometimes it turns on, which shows it isn't really off at all, but is turned back on by the feds at will.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They were buying a little RC quadcopter not a Predator or Reaper.
I love these USofA stories where people are caught lying and then nothing changes.
Next a lot of people say how this should not be allowed and is even illegal and nothing changes.
Later some people will quote the consititution and then finaly nothing happens at all.
Perhaps some likes on facepalm or an octothorpe will do something.
Anybody working with kids or dogs knows that unless there are consequenses for bad behaviour, the bad behaviour will not change. Instead it will become more persistant.
PS, if you clicked the link, hand in your geek card.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If I lied to the government twice during an official inquiry, I would be shoveling money into my lawyer's pockets to mitigate the damage.
Hats off to the police. It's a thankless job, that doesn't pay enough, that I wouldn't want to do even if it paid the salary of a Wall Street Banker. But goddamn, you don't get to be above the law when you're tasked to enforce it. Especially when you're tasked to enforce it.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"We're sorry we got caught. Consider us chastised. It'll never happen again. Honest. For real this time."
you don't get to be above the law when you're tasked to enforce it. Especially when you're tasked to enforce it.
Haven't had the privilege of meeting the "I'm the police, I have the power" officers in your local town yet eh? They are EVERY WHERE and they consider themselves above the law. I've had to interact with some of them a number of times on my front porch. I had an officer tell me about the curfew law in my town once and how he would enforce it, problem was, the law wasn't even close to what he was saying. I told him what the law was, he choose to press the issue so I shut up and took it up with the Chief of Police in private later. These guys with have attitudes and a little authority which has gone to their head and they don't mind using the "Police Grease" (the deference they get in public for wearing the uniform and side arm) to their personal gain.
Don't get me wrong, not all officers are this way. Many are selfless public servants who get paid a pittance to risk their lives every day. My hat goes off to all of them who are doing the job, regardless of their ego status. Just don't fool yourself, some of them have some serious ego issues.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So,, let me git this straight.
If we do it when questioned by officials we can go to jail..
I even believe some individuals in HIGH offices have gone to prision over this..
but....
when most individuals in an important position commit these offences, they get to apologize and move on?
WTF???
was even most interesting abou tthis petitcular case is that it's proported by the individuals whom are supposed to uphold this law...
makes ya wonder
Don't get me wrong, not all officers are this way. Many are selfless public servants who get paid a pittance to risk their lives every day. My hat goes off to all of them who are doing the job, regardless of their ego status. Just don't fool yourself, some of them have some serious ego issues.
There are many good cops. But until they go after the bad cops and run them off, all of them are represented by the assholes in the news.
I would say the really real problem is that law enforcement everywhere seems to have developed the notion that it needs to have secret technologies, that the role of the secret is to preserve the power of the technology, and that control of that power is more important than the laws it enforces.
After saying that, yes, penalties for lying your way out of a FOI request should be increased. However, I bet a thousand jelly-filled donuts that the police in the US soon have access to, and make habitual use of, something like the "National Security" clause.
Those who uphold the law obey it.
Those who enforce the law do not, if it is "inconvenient" or might not result in a conviction.
captcha "grovel", how appropriate.
Whoodathunk we'd get caught. Our bad. kthxbye
I'm sure there was a moment when this detective had to say to himself, after careful consideration, Damn, it's just me here. I have to do something.
The detective confronted the restaurant robber, no Dillinger he, as he entered the dining room. The lesson to take from this is, "When the cops in Texas tell you to drop the weapon, they mean right now, because you'll be dropping it either way."
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Except that it's not really clear that a law was broken. The police in its opinion did not think it had a drone but only had a UAV quadcopter. Their fault was not coming out with a big press release saying "we bought a toy copter with federal money and are going to be trying it out to see if it can help us". When they claimed to not have drones then they weren't lying unless you classify such a device as a drone. Certainly I think that "MuckRock News" thinks this is a drone but it seems from internal memos that the police did not consider it a drone. Yes, there is clearly a confusion about definitions going on here but it is not clear if there were any laws broken, or if they were required to communicate the fact that they were experimenting with an expensive RC copter.
Personally I don't know if it's a drone or not. Every month the definitions change. I'd say that five years ago I would have said such a thing is not a drone. Today however I'm not sure.
From a skim of TFA, it appears that they do not, in fact, have a drone. They admit that they have a UAV, but despite the MSM brainwashing, UAVs (and consumer quadcopters, for that matter) are not drones. Drones operate autonomously: program it, hit go, walk away. A UAV, like a back yard quadcopter, is operated by remote control.
Before anyone starts shouting "OMG, semantics", the only reason that that is the case is that the idiots who've been reporting on quadcopters and UAVs keep referring to them as drones. (In fairness, the reporters are probably parroting knobs from the three-letter agencies who would no doubt love to have the public convince themselves that all remote control vehicles are all evil drones and that anyone who operates them must therefore be ter'ists. They're counting on unquestioning stupidity. Think for yourself. Question authority. They hate it when you do that.)
The U.S.A.'s own East Berlin Stasi stand tall.
... here's a sledge hammer. Make your statement true.
By the way, that's coming out of your pay.
A See Through Drone?
thanks to my lazy card, i still have my geek card.
I would've figured that the informed Slashdot commenters would know that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) only applies to the **Federal** government...
The days that a policemans honesty was unquestionable are now gone. They are now known liars and liars lie.
Surprised there wasn't a CHL holder in attendance in Texas, not that I'd whip out the firearm with a police officer in the room taking care of it.
Armed robbery is a really bad idea in Texas, there are way to many firearms out there being carried by CHL holders who are usually well trained and ready to make it into an ATTEMPTED robbery.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're only sorry because you were caught..
In most cases the "immunity" only applies if the person is in performance of their duty. But if you can show they were actually in commission of a crime, then that can't be construde as performance of duty, and the immunity could go away.
I say humiliate the judges and prosecutors. Judges biggest sin is their pride; if you poke them in their pride, they tend to react. Expose the fact that courts have been used like puppets by the prosecutors and law enforcers. The prosicutors need to be called a bunch of panzies and/or accessories to racketeering for their own lack of action.
The decision to use a jury or not is up to the defendant.
The solution to this is to get the state legislatures to take back their control. They all need to pass a law that no municipality or other government entity within the state may receive any moneys or equivilent from any entity other than that state government.
This will force the feds to negotiate directly with the state instead of at a lower level.
local PDs have learned a lot from the Feds over the recent years. All that is needed is a statement claiming innocence, and that's usually good enough to be reprinted verbatim as "truth" with no investigation or cynicism that self interest might not always be honest.
Except that it's goddamn clear what was being asked about, and the answer was not provided in a truthful manner. i.e.: THEY LIED.