Slashdot Mirror
CHP Officers Steal, Forward Nude Pictures From Arrestee Smartphones
sabri writes: Following the initial suspension of a California Highway Patrol officer earlier this week, news has come out that the CHP has an entire ring of officers who steal and subsequently share nude pictures. The nudes are stolen from women who are arrested or stopped. Officer Sean Harrington of Martinez reportedly confessed to stealing explicit photos from the suspect's phone, and said he forwarded those images to at least two other CHP officers. Where is the ACLU when you need them the most?
Now. No other options. This shit has gotta stop.
Ill tell you, the Pigs have been misbehaving in this country for some time. After 9/11 they all decided to be Navy Seals. Armed with high power weapons, body armor, assault vehicles, all without the stringent selection process. I imagine the pervert in Cali was suspended with pay.
an ill wind that blows no good
Didn't Bennett Hasselton have a blog here recently on this subject?
This is so twisted. It bothers me greatly that they could be so despicable and twisted. What the hell is wrong with these cops? Pervs in uniform and I wonder if they'll still be out there on duty next year? I hate the thought these sickos will still be pulling women over after they get a slap on the wrist for this. Fire them.
If I understand it correctly you might get a drivers license (with limitations) as young as 15 ½, I imagine young drivers are more often stopped than others, did the stolen pictures include depictions of anyone as young?
You devil!
She already has a lawyer, and I'm sure he's going to get a very substantial settlement.
Fire and prosecute.
First, if you're going to have that crap on your phone, or if you're going to store it on someone else's system (iCloud, etc) then this is what happens.
Second, the police are just another gang at this point.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Nice No True Scotsman you got going there.
No, I mostly only see the ACLU rabble rousing for their own racist and misandrist agendas
I mean, you can't ALWAYS get away with shooting unarmed, people-of-color, uh, people. And the beatings of same, especially women, in public view, can at best mean a dry cleaning bill. This way, hero status is easily, and safely, achieved. Noodies! Boobies! Pussies!
Yours,
Ponch
or torrent available?
Pics, or it didn't happen!
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
pictures, or it didn't happen.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yeah, but it's the IT industry who's misogynistic (rolls eyes). Where're those SJW's when you actually need them? Out defending those professional trolls who smear an entire group of people based on outdated and outmoded stereotypes, like Anita S. and Zoe Q.
Can the victim(s) use the various copyright laws against these pigs? And yes, I call 'em pigs - there is a big difference between an officer of the law and a pig or a cop....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
You can only copy it. It's not theft when the original owner is not deprived of the goods.
We should not be allowed to encrypt our data, because it hinders LEA in stopping the criminals. But what is LEA are the criminals. Strong encryption on a phone had prevented this. The is also no probable cause to search the contents of a phone after a suspected DUI.
Fire them.
Out a window.
A "no true Scotsman" argument is when one redefines terms in a contrived way. When you specifically choose your definitions to support your argument, rather than choosing generally agreed upon definitions, you are making a "no true Scotsman" argument.
This, and the other post you responded to, are not "no true Scotsman" sophistries. They are not redefining privacy, they are saying that it is a trivial invasion of privacy. An example of a "no true Scotsman" sophistry here would be: "this isn't an invasion of privacy, because it was police officers who obtained the photographs." Notice how it arbitrarily chooses to make an exception to the common definition solely for the sake of defending the argument.
If you are having trouble understanding logic and argument, the I suggest imagining yourself as an uninterested observer. It may take practice, but you'll eventually get the hang of it.
Seriously, don't make yourself the bulls-eye of an easy target. If you're so narcissistic that you need to take nekkid photos of yourself on your phone, don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you in your nekkid arse.
Looks like you're the troll, my dear trollitrollip.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Like the time the ACLU fought for the KKK's right to protest on the courthouse steps? Or rather, are you making a snap judgement based on a preconceived notion you got not from your own research into the organization, but from some media outlet?
My guess, the latter.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You have nothing to fear. They are here for your protection.
Ma'am we are going to need your pass code to view your encrypted data. If you are innocent you have nothing to fear
Andy Griffith when you need him?
Seriously I seem to remember him having some issues exactly like this with his deputy (I'm blocking on his name now, but a great comedian in his own right.), where he'd do overzealous or blatantly illegal things all in the name of justice, and Andy would have to straighten him out on why.
But then again maybe I'm remembering it wrong and he was just as much of a douche as the next cop :)
Wrong, guess again. I've been watching them for five decades
between which one you're likely to find lying in a gutter, and which one you WISH you'd find lying in a gutter?
Because I think the former is more likely to end up there than the latter, since honest citizens wouldn't do to the latter what either 'their own' or criminals often do to the former (unless they were demanding too large of a bribe.)
That's the only solution. A secret group of brave individuals who catalog and verify the wrongdoings by these pigs and hunt them down like the animals they are.
...the ACLU can only represent as many people as it can afford to represent. If you want them to champion more causes, you need to donate them more money.
I have met people that hate the ACLU for their legal battles against public schools basically requiring students to participate in religious ceremonies, and hence give them no money, and then turn around and demand that the ACLU stand up for whatever just cause they care about at the moment.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
who keeps nude photos of themselves on their smartphone? Put them on an external Micro SD card and keep it at home or in the wallet or purse. Just my 2 cents.
No True Scotsman. Score: 0/10.
Nice No True Scotsman you got going there.
You're either an idiot, or a bot programmed by an idiot. I guess you *could* be some naive kid who just learned about logical fallacies...if that's the case you might want to go back to logic class for a refresh.
Trolls trolling trolls trolling troll-trolling trolls.
My face when you can't recognize reductio ad absurdum.
Idiot.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You want to know why I celebrate every time a Pig is killed, like what happened yesterday in Northern California? Shit like this is why.
Whoosh.
1) Privacy is generally considered a right (at least, on Slashdot, cue the flames).
2) The title of the comment says "busy with real rights" violations.
3)The body of the comment says "not [...] invasion of privacy", implying that it's not a right--not that it's a petty right. They called it "petty crap", not a petty right.
when one redefines terms in a contrived way
And that's exactly what they've done. They redefined the term "rights" to exclude privacy.
I think it is quite a bit worse than it appears.
Let's listen in on this conversation back at the ultimate headquarters:
"This Internet is spreading too much truth. If we're not careful, we may get found out and might even lose the ability to print money and then loan it to everyone. Whatever are we to do?"
"Look, it is really quite simple. All we have to do is groom a corrupt police force. The police will go for it because we'll make it worth their while. The public will get all mad at the police, but be powerless to do anything. And we will be completely forgotten and just have to wait for these new censorship measures to get established everywhere -- once they are, no one will dare speak out, and if they do we will redirect their words to dev null. Before we send in the SWAT team."
Shaking my head as people delve into discussion of copyrights, victim blaming, legal precedents, etc.
The bottom line is I do not want these out of control ASSHOLES pulling over myself, my family members, or my fellow citizens ever again.
I want my my police force - the one I fscking pay for - to have restraint, respect, and integrity for the citizen-bosses they've been privileged and entrusted to protect.
The moment any of these individuals show an inkling of inability to upload any of these 3 basic things, they need to be let go.
Well we should have someone get a warrant because they have probable cause that crimes are being committed then.
Oh wait, who will police the police? Internal affairs, not really.
This, and the other post you responded to, are not "no true Scotsman" sophistries.
Yes they are.
They are not redefining privacy
Yes you are, you are redefining it as not a right. Saying that the ACLU is busy with real rights violations says that privacy is not a real right.
An example of a "no true Scotsman" sophistry here would be: "this isn't an invasion of privacy, because it was police officers who obtained the photographs.
Another example of a "no true Scotsman", which also actually fits here, would be "this isn't a rights violation because privacy isn't a right". Notice how it arbitrarily chooses to make an exception for privacy as not actually being a right solely for the sake of defending the argument.
If you are having trouble understanding logic and argument, the I suggest imagining yourself as an uninterested observer. It may take practice, but you'll eventually get the hang of it.
I'd say that this was situationally ironic, but.. we are on /. after all.
I dunno... Probably at the donut shop... Well, Starbucks is kinda their "donut shop".
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If there's no criminal prosecution then that's a serious miscarriage of justice. If they aren't fired after an internal affairs investigation then something is seriously wrong.
>Where is the ACLU when you need them the most?
Keeping Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh out of jail. Go look it up and use this fact to make RWNJs head's explode. It's fun.
Something like this and NSA stories are something FBI need to know. Not just ask for something. Where is the oversight? Would he take the responsibilities personally, meaning he would be willing to go to jail himself if his peers abuse the power?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo?
Seriously, don't make yourself into a raging dicklet. If you can't figure out why you're a fucking moron, don't be surprised when people punch you in the face.
Oh they know. This is why they don't want encryption on smartphones.
Finally a reason for the insane $150,000 copyright violation penalties.
John Oliver explains in this video that hilarious and informative:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Civil Forfeiture (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
My sister had a drunk altercation with her GF in Missoula MT (her own mistake, which she admits to and is working through alcoholic counseling for). The problem was the legal side spiraled out of control into a soap opera tale of good-ole-boy corruption you would only expect to see in prime time. It included collusion with the Judge, the city, and a police officer who effectively was stalking and harassing her. They slapped a restraining order on her, limiting her from visiting the house she owned, because her GF was still there, yet they wouldn't serve her any paperwork explaining the limitations of the ban, and then waited for her to appear so they could arrest her again (this is just one of numerous things they tried). Very much abuse (long sordid tale). ACLU didn't want to touch it, even though it was clear American Civil Liberties were being infringed upon because of the city's actions (through judicial and police force). She lost thousands and thousands of dollars in damages to her house and property because of the overt shenanigans of the city, but nobody cared. She doesn't have enough to afford anything beyond a public defender who isn't worth the air the breathe (would miss appointments, etc).
Long and short, the ACLU is a sham.
tora
Don't take them.
I really don't care that the cops illegally copied them
( as Rhenquist and torrent users have said, "sharing" is nopt stealing ).
If they don't exist the cosp can't steal them.
[argument needed]
The ACLU is busy defending male genital mutilation.
Even that isn't a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, because there was no initial flawed assertion, nor a counterexample that disproves that assertion.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Weren't some of those celebrities who had their private cloud accounts hacked with saucy photos claiming that it was a form of rape, others have been convicted and sentenced to a decade in prison for similar acts. Sounds like that, or more, is the least that should be expected for these officers. Sadly I would bet that they'll claim firing them is more than enough "punishment". Wasn't that BART police officer who shot an unarmed, handcuffed, restrained individual in the back out on the streets in less than a year? And after he got our he had the gall to even ask for his job back.
Again, we are subjected to incredible levels of laziness from a Slashdot Article Submitter.
Too blimmin lazy to even Google search in this day and age!!
Here, Ill do this complex and difficult task for you, since you have to ask Slashdot for help:
Q: "Where is the ACLU when you need them the most?"
A: ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
there was no initial flawed assertion
The initial flawed assertion is that privacy is not a right. I pointed that out in the post to which you are responding ("you are redefining it [privacy] as not a right").
[reason for obeying slashdot AC needed]
The question in the case of the baby + crib incident, numerous police officers shooting unarmed suspects, police shooting pet dogs, etc.. is whether or not the force used was required. This question used to be asked all the time, but today gets completely ignored..
Not that long ago if a house seemed risky for officers or the public they did not dress up like Navy Seals and Rambo up the house. They waited outside, used surveillance, and caught criminals when it was the most opportunistic and safest for EVERYONE! Today, the only people who has their safety discussed is that of the Law enforcement agents. Which is completely contrary to what a Law enforcement officer's job is supposed to be, which is "Protect and Server the Public".
Yeah, the cop _probably_ didn't intend to harm an infant but you don't know that for sure. At the same time, the officers had no requirement to bust into the house in the first place. Nobody was in eminent danger if the police department did not bust down the door.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"Where is the ACLU when you need them the most?"
In the locked bathroom examining the, umm, evidence closely...
Could some kind folk expound a bit on the likely details of how these things transpire? I think folk are getting far too wrapped up in the sordid details here. I don't care if all that was stolen was a simple 2-byte text file. I'd like a better idea of WHEN this happens.
Apparently, if this is/was a "game", then there must be some common reason officers have access to phones. What IS this?!? It certainly isn't your routine traffic stop. What are the likely situations which would make phones available to officers for an extended period of time? When phones are taken as "evidence"? When phones have to be put in a locker or held whenever anyone enters a court?
The article(s) seemed not to go into details here.
Next, the article mentions this was discovered by noticing a few photos were synced. I realize it's a bit harder for iPhones vs. Android, but isn't it still easy enough to transfer files in such a way that essentially leaves no significant record of having done such?
What PREVANTIVE options exist here? I realize without user-controlled encryption, not much is going to prevent the 3-letter folk, but surely Officer Friendly can be thwarted more readily? Again I don't care what kind of file/picture/music/etc. Since the article(s) didn't go into depth, I cannot easily tell whether there was an expectation that the police have access (as in evidence).
I guess you need a pair of glasses, old man. The ACLU actually does good work and will no doubt be involved in the prosecution of these officers. Sometimes their defense is not popular but that's how things work. The alternative is ...
Those pictures are mostly harmless compared to the other stuff cops do, but it sure grabs people's attention. You think the average person cares much about the Stingrays and parallel construction and warrantless searches and various other abuses? But tell them that when the cops pull over their wife or daughter they'll share her nude pictures, and they'll start caring.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Now. No other options. This shit has gotta stop.
I would feel comfortable with the following arrangement:
1st Offense, no evidence it was a regular practice: Ten Thousand dollar fine and four years off of pension benefits.
2nd Offense, or evidence of regular practice: Fired for cause and lose entire pension.
Any offense and images shared in a public space: Jail Time for 30-90 days, plus fired for cause and lose at least half of pension.
Note that *conspiracy* and the *Computer Fraud and Abuse Act* also may apply, so you could easily throw them in jail if you wanted to throw the book at them.
The reality is people are going to abuse their power. If you give someone who abuses power once a stern reprimand and they change, great--you've just saved a bundle of inefficiencies and you've got a cop who understands why it's important to be serious about this stuff. You also have a police culture which is less paranoid about getting officers caught, and which makes the corrupt less likely to get promoted.
http://www.oklahomalegalgroup.com/news/ohp-trooper-formally-charged-in-rape-case ...
Rape and other crimes by police officers are quite common--which is not to say that most police officers engage in them. But in a large city, there tend to be at least a few cops who are committing major crimes on a regular basis, especially against marginalized populations who they know can't effectively do anything about it.
I am aware of someone reporting such crimes in Oakland, for example, and getting threatened by law enforcement for reporting it.
Relatedly, the NY Times did a report a few years back on making complaints to local police department. The vast majority of the departments tried not to give a complaint form and to have the person talk to them instead; in at least one case the cops went through their "Do you have psychological problems?" script and placed their hands on their guns.
of the chief of police with a goat.
Circulate that and see how long you last boys!
The problem is precedent. It has now been established in law that a cop can mow down a pedestrian while texting and not be charged for it (CA), and toss a hand grenade into a baby's crib during a wrong-address raid and not be charged for it (GA) . Small wonder that the right now hates cops just as much as the left ever did.
Legal precedent doesn't work that way. Precedent is only formed when a case goes to trial and the court issues a "reported" opinion, and has little effect until it starts getting up to the appeals level. Fewer than 2% of all cases go to trial and appeals tend to focus on one or two issues (mostly fourth amendment "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" law in criminal cases).
A DA or Grand Jury's charging decision to not charge a cop with something doesn't establish legal precedent.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think the AC was asking "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" given that you completely failed to make any argument that backed up your position.
Either every time someone downloads a movie / song they are stealing it OR this officer didn't steal anything. He copied it, but he didn't steal. Slashdotters should know better. (NOTE: I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the general argument of copy != steal)
Ponch and Jon are on the case. They'll track down the perpetrators and invite the victims to a disco party after an elaborate car chase.
These officers should be fired because they know better than to be a bunch of giggling school boys, and should be judged accordingly
I must have hurt a militant liberal feelings to get this modded as a troll. No, I don't feel bad.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
durring the fappening, there was non-stop butthurt from the mainstream liberal establishment rushing to protect celebrity actor women against the anonymous hoarde of basement dwellers.
Where are they now. its some working class gals, and instead of ordinary people doing the leaking, where are all the major liberal feminist institutions.
These cops oughta be fired and charged with all the computer crimes they used to comitt this horrendous act.
or not.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
get it right!
It's trolls all the way down
When they see a picture of a real man on the ladies Cell phone, they just can't believe it. Their genitalia isn't anywhere near that large, that's why they are cops. So they take the picture. Then share it.
Sometimes they come across a nude photo. I don't believe women are that dumb as to take nude photos of themselves. So prove me wrong.. I want to see those photos.
I'm no SJW, but if you think this shit isn't becoming more prevalent, the you're a fucking idiot.
Wow, with that line you may have pulled off the best legimate trolling I've seen in a long while. lol because yes, you have to be a SJW to believe cops shouldn't be raping or stealing from the populace. Does one also have to be a SJW to believe black people shouldn't have to use seperate drinking fountains? Tell me, how long have you been beating your wife?
The term troll has been diluted at this point, but that is some OG* shit right there.
*OG = original gangster
As bad as this is, if you really think this is where you need ACLU the most out of all the cases they should be working on then you have a problem.
Privacy is not defined as a right. "No true Scotsman" arguments are arguments which arbitrarily redefine terms. Thus you have also need to work on your understanding of logic.
"this isn't a rights violation because privacy isn't a right"
Assuming you mean "should be a right" rather than "is a right" as is the common misusage, it is still not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's not even a wrong style of argument. For example, change the "privacy" to "running around naked" to make an isomorphic argument. "This isn't a rights violation because running around naked isn't a right". See how that isn't problematic?
The issue you seem to be having with logic is "confirmation bias". Since you are upset by what occurred, you are agreeing with every argument which argues your feelings and disagreeing with every argument which disagrees. It's a common mistake as well. I call it "you aren't right because you don't care to be right".
Comment removed based on user account deletion