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
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?
She already has a lawyer, and I'm sure he's going to get a very substantial settlement.
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
Corrupted cops: So what if we stole some nude pictures... ...out of a cannon, into the sun.
ACLU: You'll be fired...
Corrupted cops: Fine.
ACLU:
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
But how do you keep them from clogging the barrel from all those donuts, let alone them expanding into the lower pressure?
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
She was definitely deprived of her privacy.
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.
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
Lol, I see what you did there
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Wrong, guess again. I've been watching them for five decades
Too bad we dont live 100+ years ago where the community would lynch cops that did shit like that.
...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.
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.
(I'm blocking on his name now, but a great comedian in his own right.)
Barney Fife, played by Don Knotts. There are more than a couple of cops that would do well to be made to carry a single bullet in their shirt pocket, per Andy's policy regarding Barney and firearms.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
Pictures of cops jerking off while watching screen? should be easy to find
Hi. I see by your reply that, even though you're not really new here (judging by your UID), you're not really sure how things work.
Slashdot earns money through advertising. More page views = more ads shown = more ad clicks = more money earned.
In order to drive the page views, Slashdot "editors" troll their readership in order to stimulate discussion through upsetting people, driving them to respond to stories they otherwise would pass up. They do this in several ways, including, but not limited to:
Intentional misspellings and poor grammar in the summaries.
Intentional inflammatory use of terminology (like this summary, which got you to reply (and I replied to the meta-troll))
Injection of political or religious themes or topics (a classic; never gets old, works every time)
And so on...
Now, with this information in hand, you can read the summaries and pick out the trolling technique used in about, oh, 90% of the stories/summaries posted.
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.
Good question, actually - in this instance there's actual harm, unlike all the other SJW posts we've been seeing on slashdot
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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.
Oh they know. This is why they don't want encryption on smartphones.
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.
Then use some better metrics in selecting, training and above all, paying for them. When you pay a police officer just a bit more than a fast food flipper, you're not exactly going to attract the best of the best of the best.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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
So what you're saying is that information has no value.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
I'll settle for just firing them.
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
[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.
(rolls eyes)
Look, just because the IT industry is a misogynistic boys club doesn't mean that other groups aren't worse. The police probably aren't as bad as the army, either, that doesn't exonerate them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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).
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.
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
just because the IT industry is a misogynistic boys club
For the record: It is not.
See also: sizeable number of women employed in IT roles in every company I've ever worked in (including an application development house, a bespoke software house and an IT services company)
See also: everywhere I've worked I've had female peers earning more than me
See also: everywhere I've worked has had enforced rules on discrimination, bullying, etc
See also: everywhere I've worked I've had women in the management chain above me
Sure, it's all anecdote. It does mean that I have to reject your flawed hypothesis unless you can provide actual evidence that I've worked for the only six companies worldwide that aren't misogynistic.
(Note also that at least two of them have been blatantly misandrist - funding programmes to advance women and providing nothing for men)
These officers should be fired because they know better than to be a bunch of giggling school boys, and should be judged accordingly
Yeah, and I've worked in places where there were women as my superiors. Anecdote isn't data. Many parts of IT, however, *are* essentially boys clubs. I've never worked in one, but I've sure visited a lot of them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've visited several offices where girls are misandrist too, but as you say, anecdote.
That doesn't an industry define.
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
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.
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