Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App

An anonymous reader writes "The Register reports on a request from the US National Sheriffs' Association, which "wants Google to block its crowd-sourced traffic app Waze from being able to report the position of police officers, saying the information is putting officer's lives at risk." From the article: "'The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action,' AP reports Sheriff Mike Brown, the chairman of the NSA's technology committee, told the association's winter conference in Washington....Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk. Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his members had concerns as well. 'I can think of 100 ways that it could present an officer-safety issue,' Pasco said. 'There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your Waze.'"

Comments

Simple solution

[msobkow]

Stop setting up cash-cow speed traps. :P

Re:Simple solution

[reboot246]

You're absolutely right. And this is coming from a man whose late wife was a police officer. I love the police (for the most part), but they have no right of privacy any more than we do when they're out in public. We should not only know where they are, we should be able to video them doing their jobs. They work for us.

My wife and I used to argue about revenue from tickets. She always said they write tickets for public safety. I always said let them put their money where their mouth is and give all the money to the state. No dice - they want the money.

Re:Simple solution

[Gription]

Enforcement has always been about money instead of safety. NHTSA studies have consistently shown that driving slower then the flow of traffic has a WAY higher risk of causing of accidents then driving the same speed faster then the flow. The fact is people get excited by speed so they put up with the focus on speed and cops get a rush out of enforcing it. It is much more interesting then enforcing failure to yield / right of way and other truly dangerous acts.

Can the police supply a single instance where Waze actually caused a single injury of a police officer? If is amazing how many police officers signed up for an exciting career in law enforcement (exciting because it has risk) and recently they have been starting to whine about the risk from non credible sources of risk.

Re:Simple solution

[Austerity Empowers]

give all the money to the state

Donate it all to charity (that isn't the fraternal order of police, or some self-serving operation), mail it all to the north pole, but not the state. In some places the states or local governments have "arrangements' with the police to share this money. Further amongst themselves the police divide up roads for state, county and local coverage. You can tell because you can blow by a local cop on the interstate and he won't twitch, even if you're in his city limits. If it was about public safety he'd pull you over just to stop you, even if he was powerless to ticket you. The cat and mouse game around stop signs and traffic lights in some areas has reached epic proportions. There should not be a debate about whether you fully stopped, or almost stopped... only that you followed the intent of the intersection control.

Take away the money motive and I think police would start enforcing traffic laws based on actual danger, rather than what they think they can stick you with.

Re:Simple solution

[rogoshen1]

Exactly, example would be a school zone (25 mph) in the middle of a 45 mile zone. Chances are you're too busy checking your speedometer than looking out for children in the crossing, or hoping the guy behind you realizes the speed drops by nearly half.

Re:Simple solution

[Ichijo]

Stop setting up cash-cow speed traps.

But that's what we're paying them to do. That's why it's called a "cash cow." If we don't like it, we should stop paying them to do it.

Re:Simple solution

[Obfuscant]

If it was about public safety he'd pull you over just to stop you, even if he was powerless to ticket you.

If he is powerless to ticket you, that means you're out of his jurisdiction and doesn't have authority to stop you.

The reason the local cop on the interstate didn't stop you for "blowing by" him was probably because he was there doing something else that he was called to assist with. There's no other reason for him to be there if it isn't in his jurisdiction.

There should not be a debate about whether you fully stopped, or almost stopped... only that you followed the intent of the intersection control.

OMG, you do NOT want law enforcement to become a guessing game of "what is the intent of the traffic signal". There is never a debate about whether you "fully stopped" or "almost", that's pretty easy for an observer to tell, and you get to debate it with the judge where that debate belongs. As well as the "intent" debate. As far as law enforcement goes, the "intent" of any traffic signal (i.e. "stop sign" or "red light") is that you stop. Period. End of sentence. If the municipality that installed the signal didn't want you to stop, they would have installed a yield or yellow flasher.

Re:Simple solution

[MikeBabcock]

stop being a troll on the internet.

Re:Simple solution

[MikeBabcock]

We don't; have you ever even tried to get involved in your community's police decisions? Its hard. The police convince citizens that certain things are important; we use them as the experts to determine their own worth and then pay them for that expertise and for the work in question. Police services are very rarely doing what citizens have asked them to do but instead what they've determined is the best way to keep their jobs.

Re:Simple solution

[gijoel]

Stop speeding.

Other than that, I don't think the police have the right to complain about the public monitoring their behaviour. Corruption only grows in the dark.

Re:Simple solution

[rwven]

Someone should ask him to list all 100 of his ways it could present an officer safety issue.

I can name a few reasons that speed traps present a civilian/driver safety issue...

Let's be honest here: Police traffic fines have almost nothing to do with safety anymore. They're about income for whatever governmental organization the police represent.

Re: Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the police tell you that next time you get snared in a speed trap.

Re:Simple solution

[HornWumpus]

A divided highway. Two lane highways are much more dangerous.

Re:Simple solution

[Cramer]

When the cop is parked across the street from the bar, that becomes a lot more difficult.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you would have been hit even if she did stop. Sadly you clearly watched her roll across the line while you stared at her like an idiot?

Re: Simple solution

[mlynx]

Yes, because the schools in my county switched to busing all the students. They're not even allowed near the street until high school! Really sucks for my kids because, despite living less than half a mile from school, they can't participate in after hour activities unless someone can pick them up. Hard to do when work is 30 minutes or more away.

Re:Simple solution

[HornWumpus]

You need a designated decoy.

Re:Simple solution

[ne0n]

It's not the cash-cow speed traps and Officer Dickweed hiding behind your neighbor's azaleas with a laser gun that I'm worried about. It's the mindless, shoot-first cops that are determined to become a leading cause of death to unarmed civilians despite supposedly safe weapons.

Maybe cops need a sensible, community-minded mission in a media friendly format? "Serve and Protect", maybe, or "We're tackling real criminals now instead of the harmless pot smokers".

We have plenty of reasons to hate cops, from racially-motivated shootings to blatant theft and rage murder, these incidents happen many thousands of times every year. If they want to change I'm all for it but in the meantime let me know where these trigger happy fuckers are so I can avoid them. I believe believe in personal safety, freedom to possess property and the inviolable rights of every human being. That's why I feel justified in helping highlight gang members with badges on Waze. Think of the children (AKA collateral damage) please folks.

Re:Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo!

I do not think that one needs to even debate with the police on it. Their argument has little merit in my estimation.

Unless we are intent on creating a police state. "Papers please."

Re:Simple solution

[ihtoit]

In 1999, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 6 million crashes occurred on U.S. highways, killing over 41,000 people and injuring nearly 3.4 million others. Rear-end collisions accounted for almost one-third of these crashes1 (1.848 million) and 11.8 percent of multivehicle fatal crashes (1,923). Commercial vehicles were involved in 40 percent of these fatal rear-end collisions (770), even though commercial vehicles only comprised 3 percent of vehicles and 7 percent of miles traveled on the Nation's highways. Between 1992 and 1998, the percentage of rear-end collisions involving all vehicles increased by 19 percent. In 1999, 114 fatal crashes in work zones involved rear-end collisions, about 30 percent of the multivehicle fatal work zone crashes. Of these, 71 collisions (62 percent) involved commercial vehicles.

In the past 2 years, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated nine rear-end collisions in which 20 people died and 181 were injured (three accidents involved buses and one accident involved 24 vehicles). Common to all nine accidents was the rear following vehicle driver's degraded perception of traffic conditions ahead. During its investigation of the rear-end collisions, the Safety Board examined the striking vehicles and did not find mechanical defects that would have contributed to the accidents. In each collision, the driver of the striking vehicle tested negative for alcohol or drugs. Some of these collisions occurred because atmospheric conditions, such as sun glare or fog and smoke, interfered with the driver's ability to detect slower moving or stopped traffic ahead. In other accidents, the driver did not notice that traffic had come to a halt due to congestion at work zones or to other accidents. Still others involved drivers who were distracted or fatigued.

https://app.ntsb.gov/safety/sa... all you need.

Re:Simple solution

[houghi]

Use it for road safety. e.g. make dangerous crossings less dangerous. Start building roundabouts with said money. Look where the dangerous points are and make them less dangerous.

But indeed do NOT give it to the police.

Re:Simple solution

[sabbede]

How do you separate that from legitimate law enforcement?

Re:Simple solution

[jo_ham]

In the UK all the money from speed cameras and speed traps is used exclusively for public safety; digital speed warning signs, traffic calming, improvement of crossings etc. It's not used as a general police revenue source.

Re:Simple solution

[jo_ham]

If you can't drive a vehicle at a specified speed (designated by road signs) without being so distracted by the speedometer that you might crash then you should not have been issued with a driving licence and have no business operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

Re:Simple solution

[LordWabbit2]

Stop speeding, the limits are there for the safety of yourself and the poor innocent bystander you kill when lose control of your car and wipe out, because NO, you do not have the driving skills of a race car driver.

Re:Simple solution

[ShanghaiBill]

https://app.ntsb.gov/safety/sa... all you need.

There is NOTHING in that reference, that supports the original assertion that going slower causes more accidents than going faster. The part you quoted is about rear end collisions in degraded visibility conditions. Are you seriously suggesting that people driving in heavy fog should speed up?

Re:Simple solution

[ihtoit]

no it's a demonstration that one hundred percent of rear end collisions are caused by the lead car going SLOWER than the traffic behind.

LEARN HOW TO FUCKING READ.

Re:Simple solution

[KingMotley]

Sure. It was really hard to google "NTSA studies speed" and click the first link, but here you go:
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=NHTSA+stu...

Direct link:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fpeople%2Finjury%2Fenforce%2FSpeed_Forum_Presentations%2FFerguson.pdf&ei=qrjHVNy0C8OkgwTDuIHQCg&usg=AFQjCNGC1ELU62qSlGqu5aHElfXjNglI4g&sig2=H8dxIRK6EENhrYUXok6L1Q&bvm=bv.84349003,d.eXY

SInce you couldn't take the time to google, I'll even give you the excerpt:

Low-speed drivers were more likely to be involved in
crashes than relatively high speed drivers

Re:Simple solution

[KingMotley]

I'll even go one further, and say that according to their study, you are SAFEST (on the freeway) traveling 15MPH over the average speed. A "U"-shaped curve happens surrounding that point where it is approximately as safe to drive 30MPH over the average speed on the freeway as it is to drive the speed limit on normal streets.

Re:Simple solution

[gfxguy]

I suspect traffic circles ("roundabouts") would be a great solution in the long run around here if it wouldn't increase accidents by 5000% percent in the mean time from all the people that simply can't understand the concept.

Re:Simple solution

[gfxguy]

Is it? A "lot of time?" I'd like to read your study showing that to be the case.

Re:Simple solution

[leptons]

The simplest solution is already on the books: Freedom of Speech. Sorry coppers, your notion of privacy as a public servant is trumped by our right to freedom of speech.

Re:Simple solution

[ShanghaiBill]

no it's a demonstration that one hundred percent of rear end collisions are caused by the lead car going SLOWER than the traffic behind.

no it's a demonstration that one hundred percent of rear end collisions are caused by the following car going FASTER than the traffic ahead.

Are you seriously suggesting that when I drive into heavy fog, and cannot see the car ahead, I should SPEED UP?

Re:Simple solution

[ihtoit]

yes. You should floor it and plow into a fucking wall, you pedantic fucking prick.

Re:Simple solution

[dcw3]

Where can you "blow by a local cop on the interstate and he won't twitch"? I've driven for 40+ years, and nearly ever U.S. state, and never seen this.

I'm definitely on board with taking the money motive away!

Re:Simple solution

[dcw3]

Your anecdote aside, yes STOP should mean full stop. However, a large portion of stop signs should be replaced by yield signs.

Re:Simple solution

[dcw3]

You mentioned how police officers signed up for their careers, and while I don't have statistics on it, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of them come from military police backgrounds. And how does one become a military police officer? Why, I'm glad you asked. You take the ASVAB ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... ) test. This test has been around for decades...I took it back in the mid 70s, and it qualifies, or disqualifies you for various jobs in the military. Do you know what jobs people get when they can't qualify for other positions? Well, it may have changed, but when I was in, it was cooking or police. So, now you've got the "cream of the crop" doing law enforcement. Now, I don't mean to stereotype, because I'm sure there are plenty of highly skilled, good patrolmen and women.

Re: Simple solution

[dcw3]

Care to share what district should be ridiculed?

Re:Simple solution

[dcw3]

Stop trolling :P

Re: Simple solution

[mlynx]

Kenton County Kentucky. And yes, I think it's silly in the extreme. I walked or cycled nearly a mile to school every day. It was only uphill one way in the wintertime, but you can still get off my lawn!

Re:Simple solution

[desdinova 216]

I think it's more of a the local city keeps the money, not the cops themselves

Re:Simple solution

[Obfuscant]

I suspect traffic circles ("roundabouts") would be a great solution

In my state, traffic circles and roundabouts are two different things that appear nearly identical but operate differently. For example, in a roundabout traffic in the circular roadway has the right of way over traffic trying to enter. In a traffic circle exactly the opposite is true: traffic in the circle has to yield to traffic waiting to enter. Sounds stupid, but that's the law. I treated a traffic circle like a roundabout one fine evening and wound up with a hefty ticket.

Re:Simple solution

[rogoshen1]

How servile and feeble minded.. "bu bu but the sign said!"
Are you stupid, trolling, or just argumentative?

If you cannot honestly see how sticking a 20-25 mph zone in the middle of an arterial (that has speed of 45) is somewhere between a feel good policy (IE, think of the children!) and existing entirely for revenue generation, i really don't know what to tell you.

Further, if you don't 'get' how it could be more of a safety risk to focus on dropping your speed in half, watching out for kids, the jackhole behind you who doesn't get what a 'school zone' is AND of course the cops who hunt motorists who are over the limit by even one MPH in such zones (the fine is double of course, go figure) -- someone should really break your fingers to give you a mandatory 6 week no-typing vacation.

People like are you (suburban soccer mom perhaps?) are the reason we don't get nice things. As soon as someone trots out anything safety related, logic and risk assessment go completely out in the window in lieu of fluffy feel good nonsense. Never mind the ACTUAL FUCKING EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT YOU SUGGEST.

Re:Simple Solution

[amxcoder]

Or they could go further, and require:
a background check, thumb print, and 10-day waiting period before you're allowed to download the app. You would also have to pay and take a 'cell phone safety test' prior to purchase.

Felons would not be allowed to download or have possession of the app.

Require Registration of the app, so a central database contains lists of all people who have the app (just in case they decide later to confiscate the app).

Make using the app in public (rather than your home) require a permit for 'Concealed Carry Waze' (or CCW for short) that is expensive, and difficult to get and up to the sheriff's discretion ('may issue').

Limit the number of reports users may make, like 10 or less (afterall, no one needs to make more than 10 reports, that would be 'high capacity reporting').

And if you get caught speeding or committing any crime while in possession of the app, it would tack on 'enhancement charges' to your original crime.

Try and make the 'pro' version of the app illegal to own, as only police and military need access to the 'pro' version.

There, problem solved.

Re:Simple solution

[jo_ham]

How servile and feeble minded.. "bu bu but the sign said!"
Are you stupid, trolling, or just argumentative?

If you cannot honestly see how sticking a 20-25 mph zone in the middle of an arterial (that has speed of 45) is somewhere between a feel good policy (IE, think of the children!) and existing entirely for revenue generation, i really don't know what to tell you.

Further, if you don't 'get' how it could be more of a safety risk to focus on dropping your speed in half, watching out for kids, the jackhole behind you who doesn't get what a 'school zone' is AND of course the cops who hunt motorists who are over the limit by even one MPH in such zones (the fine is double of course, go figure) -- someone should really break your fingers to give you a mandatory 6 week no-typing vacation.

People like are you (suburban soccer mom perhaps?) are the reason we don't get nice things. As soon as someone trots out anything safety related, logic and risk assessment go completely out in the window in lieu of fluffy feel good nonsense. Never mind the ACTUAL FUCKING EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT YOU SUGGEST.

Wow. Who pissed in your chips?

Your argument was that you'd be "too busy checking your speedometer" (quote) to look out for children. I'm saying that if such a task is so distracting that you can't look at the road ahead then you're a poor driver and would likely fail a driving test.

If the speed drops by half on a road, with posted signs, and you think that's dangerous then we're clearly not on the same page at all. These sorts of things are common in the UK, for example, (and I'm sure in many countries that have roads) where an arterial route goes from the high speed limit (60 mph in the UK on non-motoways) down to 30 mph when passing through a small built up area. The signs are clearly marked, and there's plenty of warning.

When you see those signs you change speed. The obsessive checking of your speed to the exclusion of all other road perception is just nonsense. Roads have speed limits. Being able to drive your car at or below those limits without tunnel vision on the speedometer is one of the primary skills necessary to operate a vehicle safely. If you cannot do this (such that you feel you wouldn't be able to look out for children in a crossing while also being able to drive at the posted speed limit) then you have no business driving a car.

Of course what you're really angry about is that cops bust people for speeding.

Re:Simple solution

[jo_ham]

Oh, and nice assumption. Suburban soccer mom? Nice one kid.

I wasn't aware that I'd grown ovaries and acquired children and a decade in age overnight. Who knew!

Time to pop some kids out and buy some mom jeans because I disagreed with someone on slashdot. Man, you have to be careful about this shit.

Re: Simple solution

[Blaskowicz]

Can you have a neighbour pick them up on foot?

I'm speechless. Kids already suffer spending all their lives in cars and in front of the television and other displays, which makes them socially inept and then eventually unemployed (the US is only transitioning now from full employment to mass unemployment, I bet this will be seen in the coming years/decades)
It's already bad enough. Legislating that kids are denied access to the streets (also called "outdoor") is insane.

Criminal?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about ticket revenue. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Re:Criminal?

[Em Adespoton]

...and we all know, if officer location reporting was removed from Waze, some enterprising soul would just create a plug-in for the Marshal's Extracurricular Event Notation System.

You know: Waze and Meens.

Re:Criminal?

[Just Some Guy]

Well, clearly. If they actually cared about preventing speeding, they'd advertise speed traps so that you were paranoid about driving fast through that area. They don't want to deter crime, they want to punish it through lucrative fines.

Re:Criminal?

[Troed]

This is done in Sweden. The police both advertise where they're going to have speed checks for the week to come (newspapers, radio) - i most places there's a well placed "Speed camera up ahead" before each and every speed camera.

Newsflash: You're in public too

[Anonymous Coward]

Finding out where the police are should be as easy as it is for them to find you.

Re:Newsflash: You're in public too

[Rockoon]

This is just metadata about the police. It isnt telling the waze user anything specific about what the police are saying...

The police should just man up and trust us with this unimportant information.

Re:Newsflash: You're in public too

[Bing Tsher E]

It should be easier for a citizen to find the police. They are public servants, and they are there to help us. Right? An app that shows where the nearest police officer is located should even be tax funded, possibly.

Re:Newsflash: You're in public too

[binarylarry]

No shit, I don't see them going after the owners of doughnut shops.

Re:Newsflash: You're in public too

[cold fjord]

It should be easier for a citizen to find the police. They are public servants, and they are there to help us. Right? An app that shows where the nearest police officer is located should even be tax funded, possibly.

Maybe you could explain why 911 isn't going to work but this phone app would?

The "nearest" police officer may not be available to help with your problem since she may be engaged in another issue. Is your plan to bounce from "nearest" police officer to "nearest" police officer until you find one available to go back to where you had an issue to help you? And that is an improvement on calling 911 how?

You're trying to put lipstick on a pig of an idea.

Even though the police are "public servants," that doesn't make you their boss.

Many people on Slashdot put far too much effort in trying to rationalize bad ideas.

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

If they are on the road and performing their jobs, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, knowing where the nearest police officer can be found could enhance the safety of the general public.

Re:No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

[Immerman]

Where in "to protect and serve" do you read "the public"? Really it's a beautiful bit of psyops - it says nothing, but garners widespread support by by encouraging everyone to read in their own hopes.

Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[AuralityKev]

"We're afraid someone will use this knowledge to attack police officers because they know where we'll be!" Right, because you can't magically call some 3 digit number to summon them to you if you're planning a horrific deed? Some crazed lunatic needs Waze to carry out his dastardly plan? Or is it rather that you don't really want people to know exactly which billboard you're hiding behind at the side of the road to nail people for going 3 mph over the limit?

Lying Headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing in here says anything about the NSA. Could we at least get a decent website.

John

Re:Lying Headlines

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, the article does say something about the 'NSA'.

Title of article:

NSA gunning for Google, wants cop-spotting dropped from Waze app

Subtitle of article:

Not that NSA, the other one

First sentence:

The US National Sheriffs' Association wants Google to block its crowd-sourced traffic app Waze from being able to report the position of police officers, saying the information is putting officer's lives at risk.

NSA = National Sheriffs' Association.

Re:Lying Headlines

[93 Escort Wagon]

This reminds me of a scene from an old Andy Griffith Show episode that, for no good reason, has been relegated to long-term storage in my brain.

Andy and Barney are checking into a hotel somewhere for a cop convention. The receptionist says "Thank you Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Fife... oh, excuse me, DOCTOR Fife!"

Andy incredulously looks at the sign-in book and notes that Barney has appended an "M.D." to his name - after which Barney sheepishly explains it stands for "Mayberry Deputy".

(okay, in all likelihood I'm the only person here who thinks that's funny...)

Re:Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[AuralityKev]

There totally was a greater-than sign in the subject line.

No fuck off

[mattventura]

Every time I see a cop doing something useless like sitting at the side of the road I want to see their budget cut. They do that crap instead of helping with real crimes. And don't say "but the traffic cops are the same cops that would be investigating crimes" because it's all under one budget.

Re:No fuck off

[hawguy]

Every time I see a cop doing something useless like sitting at the side of the road I want to see their budget cut. They do that crap instead of helping with real crimes. And don't say "but the traffic cops are the same cops that would be investigating crimes" because it's all under one budget.

How do you know they are doing something useless and aren't sitting there filling out paperwork while keeping on eye on the road looking for the more egregious violations? You may argue that filling out paperwork is a useless waste of their time, but no police officer has ever said "Gee, I sure wish I had more mandatory paperwork to do!" A single felony arrest can result in several hours of paperwork to complete, and If it's not all filed perfectly, that may let the suspect go free.

Re:No fuck off

[Archangel Michael]

They don't actually work "real crimes" anymore. They have automated systems which allow you to file a police report that they can then ignore. However if you're sleeping in a park, it takes three cop cars and a supervisor to harass you.

Re:No fuck off

[Firethorn]

Sometimes they're sitting there between calls doing paperwork.

The problem with cutting their budget is that traffic enforcement(writing tickets) generates revenue, solving crimes doesn't. So you'd be forcing them to write even more tickets.

Even in areas where the police department doesn't get a cut of ticket revenues, generally the legislatures will alter funding - IE give the cops money to be able to afford to write tickets where the money from the tickets goes to the schools. If they don't write enough tickets, they'll be questioned by the budget committees.

Re:No fuck off

[bondsbw]

Actually it isn't useless. Having emergency responders spread out, instead of gathered at the station, can significantly reduce response times in the event of an emergency.

This was one of the subjects of a friend's Ph.D. dissertation. He used it to show that while random spread can reduce emergency response times, creating patrol routes that target hot spots based on time of day can reduce response times nearly in half (compared with random spread).

Re:No fuck off

[blue9steel]

The problem with cutting their budget is that traffic enforcement(writing tickets) generates revenue, solving crimes doesn't.

Fixing that would make a great initiative petition. "Henceforth all ticket revenue will be rebated to the taxpayers directly on a quarterly basis".

Re:No fuck off

[Outtascope]

Every time I see a cop doing something useless like sitting at the side of the road I want to see their budget cut. They do that crap instead of helping with real crimes. And don't say "but the traffic cops are the same cops that would be investigating crimes" because it's all under one budget.

Actually, sitting on the side of the road isn't doing nothing. Having a visible presence is the best means to ensure that people actually obey the speed limit. Knowing that a cop is parked at a particular place helps ensure that people won't drive recklessly in that area.

Sitting behind a billboard or hiding in a patch of trees in the center median trying to CATCH people in the midst of a revenue generating civil infraction rather than engaging in a behavior that might PREVENT dangerous activities, that is dereliction of duty.

Police departments ought to have a budget that is exponentially and inversely proportional to their ticket revenue. If they are writing that many tickets then they SUCK at deterrence.

Re:No fuck off

[bobbied]

Oh I don't know....

I had every cop on duty in the small town I live in show up at my home once. What where they looking for? Some kids playing with guns during school...

It turned out to be some neighbor who called to complain about my kid playing with the kids across the street (both home schooled) and their arsenal of bright blue and orange nurff guns that shot orange foam darts about 15 feet, the day before.

They showed up with all three squad cars and 5 officers, right after lunch to let us know we where violating a non-existent curfew law.. What a waste of time and resources.

Re:No fuck off

[Firethorn]

Fixing that would make a great initiative petition. "Henceforth all ticket revenue will be rebated to the taxpayers directly on a quarterly basis".

Then you'd have all the taxpayers who haven't had a traffic ticket lately clamoring for more and more expensive tickets to be written. ;)

Re:No fuck off

[neminem]

"I'm sure society would be better if everyone drove just as fast as they want."
Nope.

"those speed limit rules were made up just to create revenue."

Generally: yes.

Speed limits *in the abstract* are a good idea. However, the vast majority of specific speed limit *numbers* are way lower than they should be, if the purpose was entirely for safety, rather than for revenue. Hence why everyone drives generally between 5-20 mph (depending on location) higher than the posted speed limit if they can get away with it: because they're driving the speed it's actually safe to drive. I'm 100% not for removing all speed limits - that's a great straw-man argument. I'm just for raising them to a more reasonable speed, at which point I would be entirely in favor of actually policing them strongly, which I'm not at all in favor of under their current implementation. That guy going 110mph in a 65 zone absolutely deserves a huge fine at *least*. The guy going 75, though, totally doesn't (under most circumstances).

Re:No fuck off

[Immerman]

Hey, we could always go back to the original laws: Streets are for people, there were no traffic laws, and any collisions were immediately presumed to be the fault of the larger vehicle.

Re:No fuck off

[Cramer]

And they aren't "patrolling" if they're just sitting there. In legal terms, that's "standing" for us Joe Citizens.

Re:No fuck off

[Archangel Michael]

But "GUNS!!!!!"

The amount of PANIC in people is ridiculous. I work for a school district, and three schools went on full "LOCKDOWN!!!" because someone called a report of someone walking down the street with a "GUN!!!!". Turns out it was a man with a cane.

So, lets panic! It seems to be all the rage!

Re:No fuck off

[blue9steel]

Which would result in greater policing efforts and more people actually obeying the traffic laws, yet everyone would be pretty happy about it due to the rebate checks. I'm not seeing a lot of downside here.

Re:No fuck off

[david_thornley]

Actually, a call for help will come at a specific time, so the cars will be at specific spots on their patrol routes, so this is no different from officers parking at spots along their patrol routes. For response to 911 calls, movement is irrelevant.

Patrolling, in the sense of moving, will allow the officers to see more of what is going on, making it more likely that police spot a situation that needs attention. However, from what little I know, police respond to calls a lot more than they see something they need to take care of (except in the case of traffic patrols).

Wait a minute...

[brainboyz]

...you mean the police don't like being stalked, electronically followed, and reported on without a warrant?

Re:Wait a minute...

[Cramer]

Actually, it's usually safer for all if the cops don't show up during the bank heist. That's how hostages get taken and people get shot/stabbed/etc. Plus, if they "get away", it's instantly the FBI's problem. (also, with technology what it is today, few ever totally get away with it.)

Re:Wait a minute...

[LMariachi]

I think you'd be surprised at how many successful bank robberies there are. Of course they try not to publicize the stats because it makes them look bad, and of course COPS isn't going to show criminals escaping because the whole point of COPS is to instill [fear of | confidence in] law enforcement.

It helps that most robberies aren't committed by well-funded organized crews with clown masks and automatic weapons emptying the safe full of bearer bonds and gold bullion. It's usually one guy in a fake beard taking $4000 from a teller with a threatening note.

FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

Waze has been around for over 6 years. If this were a legitimate concern why can he not point to a single incident of someone doing exactly this rather than merely spreading FUD?

Re:FUD

[groggy.android]

Precisely, they should also ask Google to ban the app's ability to show the location of schools (which could theoretically put children at risk from tech-savvy "pedophiles") and hospitals and gasoline stations (which terrorists could blow up). Really any serious criminal is probably going to have trained spotters who'll report the presence of any law enforcer. Maybe we should also ban cellphones?

Re:FUD

[MikeBabcock]

What's much more entertaining to me is that more often than not, the police reporting function isn't that valuable because the officer will have caught someone and moved on to a new spot by the time I see the notice.

Re:FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yeah, I've noticed that too. 9 times out of 10 the report is stale and no one has marked it as such.

Re:FUD

[Cramer]

Or, perhaps, and I'm just puttin' it out there... they use the app themselves. A good sniping position is only good until you're spotted.

Re:FUD

[Rich0]

What's much more entertaining to me is that more often than not, the police reporting function isn't that valuable because the officer will have caught someone and moved on to a new spot by the time I see the notice.

Yes and no. Typically when I see a report I figure the police speed trap or whatever is somewhere within a few miles, which is useful information. Often the police just move up and down a stretch of highway alternating between prepared positions.

Re:FUD

[cold fjord]

Waze has been around for over 6 years. If this were a legitimate concern why can he not point to a single incident of someone doing exactly this rather than merely spreading FUD?

You seem to have missed some news stories.

NYPD Cop Killer Used App to Track Police Movements Since Early December

NYPD Cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley was using a traffic app called Waze to track law enforcement’s movements, NYC Alerts tweeted on Monday. According to an available screenshot, Brinsley was tracking two officers who were almost 4 miles away from him in Staten Island at 10:44 PM EST since the beginning of December.

Re:FUD

[Lunix Nutcase]

So one incident in 6+ years? Oh my god!

Re:FUD

[cold fjord]

Remember this statement?

If this were a legitimate concern why can he not point to a single incident of someone doing exactly this rather than merely spreading FUD?

Apparently it is a legitimate concern and your view isn't worth much.

BTW - That "single" incident resulted in two assassinated police officers.

Re:FUD

[InvisiBill]

You seem to have missed some news stories.

NYPD Cop Killer Used App to Track Police Movements Since Early December

NYPD Cop killer Ismaaiyl Brinsley was using a traffic app called Waze to track law enforcement's movements, NYC Alerts tweeted on Monday. According to an available screenshot, Brinsley was tracking two officers who were almost 4 miles away from him in Staten Island at 10:44 PM EST since the beginning of December.

Except that, as already stated, Waze doesn't track police. It only supports reporting a parked police car (or any other object/hazard). You could over time collect and analyze data from the reported police locations to determine when and where they tend to be, but that's well beyond the capability of the app alone, and still isn't even "tracking" in the sense implied in the article. The very next sentence after your quote even mentions this:

He thanks a friend of his on Instagram for pointing out the app is not "updated in real time" so it’s not that "reliable."

Voluntary, user-submitted, stationary reports in a traffic app are a far cry from realtime stalking ability. https://www.waze.com/livemap/ is a copy of the data that the app uses. The app shows when the item was reported and how many times another user verified the info (as shown in the article's screenshot), but there's essentially no detailed info in the report, as you can see. From one of the links in that article (http://www.breaking911.com/nypd-cop-killer-was-using-police-alert-app-to-track-cops/):

It is not clear whether Brinsley used the WAZE application as a police location tool for the murders or simply as the application is intended to be used.

There is no way that Waze could be used to track the two officers in the way the article implies, without another Waze user standing next to the officers making new reports as frequently as is required to meet the definition of "realtime".

Re:FUD

[MikeBabcock]

For this reason I often also report officers who've already stopped a vehicle, because they may loop around and set up again; if they weren't just mobile to begin with.

Re:Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[Lunix Nutcase]

Then you forgot to escape it. < > posts just fine.

Predator and Prey

[Anonymous Coward]

Lions don't like it when antelope announce when they've spotted them either.

Maybe the police shouldn't treat citizens as prey.

Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[BarbaraHudson]

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his members had concerns as well. 'I can think of 100 ways that it could present an officer-safety issue,' Pasco said. 'There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your Waze.'"

If bank robbers only rob banks far away from where the cops are, and are gone by the time the cops get there, doesn't that LOWER the chances of an armed confrontation? Just saying ...

Re:Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[TechyImmigrant]

>executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police,

That sounds pretty gender discriminatory to me.

Re:Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[bobbied]

In the short run anyway... Eventually the bad guys will just take over if you let them.

Re:Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[BarbaraHudson]

First, are you going to put a cop on every corner? No. So you're not detering the robbery, just shifting the location.

Second, most crooks are STUPID. They leave clues. Every crook in jail didn't think he'd get caught. Even the ones who dropped their wallets.

Re:Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[Cramer]

BONUS: then it becomes the FBI's problem, not yours.

Re:Seems to me that the cops getsit backwards

[Cramer]

That's a weak deterrent at best. First, criminals are rather stupid. Second, the smarter ones will find an easier target, the dumber ones get more firepower.

Aren't these the same guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

...saying that if you're out in public you have no expectation of privacy?

You stop surveilling me, and I'll stop surveilling you.

Re:Aren't these the same guys...

[pedrop357]

This.

Waze is just people talking to each other.

[Anonymous Coward]

Waze is just people talking to people. I'm pretty sure we already have a law that covers this situation.

Re:Waze is just people talking to each other.

[bobbied]

I wouldn't call it a law but more of a foundational legal principle. But I'm sure the distinction is lost on the majority of /. readers....

Risk is part of the job last I checked

[nehumanuscrede]

"saying the information is putting officer's lives at risk"

I'm pretty sure the recent increase in behavior trends in Law Enforcement are what's putting officers lives at risk.
( Pro Tip: Keep killing unarmed folks and the masses eventually will break out the pitchforks and torches )

Hell, to be fun, they should remove the COP logo from Waze and replace it with a Pistol instead to reflect the increased likelihood of being shot.

Re:Risk is part of the job last I checked

[Okian Warrior]

Where is this shit coming from? How did you get voted so highly?

Police who commit misconduct of any kind is are the extreme minority.[...]

Here's a concrete example for you.

Cleveland Cops recently shot a black teenager who had an air-pistol.

That's OK, because the air pistol is indistinguishable from a real pistol (the red tip had been removed), and the police followed proper procedure. In a statement given to the press, the police described how the teenager had been told three times to raise his hands, and when he didn't comply and went for the pistol, he was shot twice and killed.

No problem, it wasn't a black-on-white issue, the police were responding to a call, it really *really* looked like he had a pistol, and he didn't respond to repeated commands to surrender.

...except that video of the shooting shows police opening fire less than 2 seconds after arriving on the scene, and neither [of the two policemen] administered first aid to Rice after the shooting.

The entire police force closed ranks and kept quiet while the department made an official statement that was a complete falsification of the evidence, in order for two officers to shirk legal responsibility. The police didn't release the surveillance video until public pressure forced them to.

So enlighten me, I'm confused. Which of the police in the Cleveland police force are *not* guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?

Re:Risk is part of the job last I checked

[Etherwalk]

Police who commit misconduct of any kind is are the extreme minority.

Police who commit serious misconduct are in the extreme minority (5% of cops in NYC are responsible for 80%+ of the resisting arrest citations, for example). Police who commit things that should be misconduct may be in the minority, but not by much. (Getting tickets fixed--I've even heard of this for drunk driving.)

Re:Risk is part of the job last I checked

[Cramer]

Police who commit misconduct of any kind is are the extreme minority.

That we hear about in the national news... we aren't made aware of every bullet fired by officers (there's supposed to be paperwork when they discharge their weapon(s)) or their every infraction

Re:Risk is part of the job last I checked

[Fwipp]

And cops who cover up for other cops' serious misconduct are the extreme majority.

Re:Risk is part of the job last I checked

[amxcoder]

It's the electronic equivalent of drivers flashing their lights at oncomming cars to alert them of a LEO running radar. That method has been done for decades, and is still popular with truckers these days. There is nothing illegal about it.

Escort Live seems to use Waze

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a BEL or Escort radar detector and subscribe to Escort Live, you will see that EL also uses Waze data for its cop-alerts.
This is all about cash, not safety.

Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[TiggertheMad]

Perhaps the police should stop behaving in was that make non-criminals scared of them. The number of dangerous criminals in society is really very small. If this app is downloaded more than a few hundred times that would indicate that more people than just hardened criminals want to keep tabs on cops. Just the download counter for the app could be read as a social barometer of public trust.

Also, the watchmen don't like being watched? Tough shit. You want more power than the average person, you had better get used to extra scrutiny too.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[amicusNYCL]

Just the download counter for the app could be read as a social barometer of public trust.

It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.

If this app is downloaded more than a few hundred times that would indicate that more people than just hardened criminals want to keep tabs on cops.

Is what the results of your study show, that there are a few hundred hardened criminals around?

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[CauseBy]

"Also, the watchmen don't like being watched? Tough shit."

Exactly. Google should word it more politically but I hope "No, fuck you" is an accurate paraphrase of their response.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waze isn't a cop searching app. It's a driving directions app that shows where cops are so people can avoid speed traps while driving. It also shows traffic accidents, where cars are pulled over on the side of the road, where lanes are closed, where construction is taking place, etc. Basically anything that would be useful for a driver to know. In fact, most of the time it's making the road safer for cops because if they've pulled someone over on the side of the road and a person using Waze reports that there's a cop, then other drivers on the road using the app will know to look out for the cop when they drive near that area and are less likely to accidentally hit them.

Note that I'm not making any argument that the ability to point out cops should be removed. Just that maybe you should do some modicum of research (i.e. type "waze" into google and skim the first result) before you start talking about shit and end up sounding like a moron, which decreases the strength of your argument considerably.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

so people can avoid speed traps while driving.

If by "speed traps" you mean "places with unusually-low speed limits", that's legitimate.
Offering information on how to get away with breaking traffic laws is wrong, although protected by the First Amendment.

Not if that information is "slow down", which is the only information another user indicating police ahead could give. The action most likely taken by a driver with information of a police officer ahead: slowing down. That driver is not going to speed more than they did without the new information, because a lack of police ahead reports does not mean no police ahead.

The app is doing more good than harm here, by getting more drivers that are already breaking the law to step back in-line with the law. It's not causing more speeding but less.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

"exists for any other reason but to let other speeding drivers know to slow down until they pass the cop and speed back up to well above the speed limit."

Rubbish. That may be one reason, but if you can't think of "any other reason" then you're not trying very hard. Waze doesn't report changes in speed limits, and some jurisdictions do indeed set up speed traps for no other purpose than generating revenue, so when driving in unfamiliar jurisdictions it is quite useful to know where cops are hiding because it implies a possible speed trap. You may be driving 45 in a 45 zone, ie. Not Speeding, round a bend and suddenly it's a 25 zone with a radar cop. This has nothing to do with Wanting to speed, but leveling the play field with unscrupulous jurisdictions. So this feature of Waze is just like all the other reporting features -- it's just useful road information, the same as knowing where accidents are.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[stephanruby]

Pasco said. 'There's no control over who uses it. So, if you're a criminal and you want to rob a bank, hypothetically, you use your Waze.'"

What about the non-criminals who want to know where the police are so they can get some help from them? Or what about the non-criminals who want to know when police officers are blocking a side of the road, or dealing with a traffic situation? If they really don't want to be bothered, they should just drive unmarked cars, make their phone numbers unlisted, and institute some kind of paywall for their official web sites.

Instead of removing information from Waze, they should just be adding information to it with their own api. They could transmit the gps location of their marked cars in real-time (like bus systems now do with the nextbus api). When responding to a call, they should just send the person who called a real-time update of their estimated arrival. And when there is a bank robbery, they should just flood the Waze api with virtual police officers everywhere.

Not only that, but if the police could try to crowdsource the effort of looking for bank robbers, child abductors, or the obvious-looking drunk drivers, through Waze instead of overburdening the outdated the 911 system, that would help them prioritize and weed out most of the false positives in real-time.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[WillRobinson]

Yes its nice to be alerted to the police, not just for checking if your speeding. Here in Texas, the law is "The law states a driver must either vacate the lane closest to the stopped emergency vehicle if the road has multiple lanes traveling in the same direction or slow down 20 miles per hour below the speed limit. (If the speed limit is below 25 mph the driver must slow down to 5 mph.) "

Waze does not have listing for Ambulance, or fire truck etc. But you still have to move over, and with traffic here its good to know a mile ahead so you can safely change lanes.

I use it daily, and I wish I had access to the data and do a map of locations where a police have stopped over 30 times a year. That would show every speed trap they use. And they do use those just to make their quota..

I am sure you at least have encountered that situation it one time in your life.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Moof123]

Speeding laws and their enforcement are corrosive to our sense of justice. Think of it as a gateway law to break.

Drive the speed limit and you get angry people tailgating you and angrily making unsafe passes even when you are in the slow lane. Clearly in most places the speed limits are too low. So most folks in decent highway conditions drive 10-15 mph over the limit, which makes them all law breakers.

Cops don't clearly state at what point they will pull someone over, or what cup size allows you to talk your way out of a ticket, which really erodes our sense of equal justice for all (and violates our constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection under the law). In fact we all violate the law several times a day just to live like a normal citizens, and much of the time we are pretty unaware something was even against the law (a sure sign our legal system has gotten out of hand). Cops get to choose when to apply esoteric laws and when to ignore pretty basic ones (depends highly on skin color or the presence of a badge).

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

How about illegally low speed limits? The State of Texas sets out guidelines for setting limits. The places setting them must abide. Most don't. They set the limit the lowest they think they can get away with. This causes traffic jams and unsafe conditions. If a cop is sitting on the side of the road running radar, that's "proof" that the limit is unreasonably low.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[rtb61]

Colour me confused but aren't police meant to be visible on patrol, reassuring the public and obstructing the criminals by their presence. Being a police officer is not meant to be about being a revenue machines on the clock but a peace officer assisting the public in upholding the law and providing a first response emergency service. So shouldn't police be more like, hmm, great app, let's try to be everywhere on it and not just sitting down on our doughnut munching lard arses, as mobile revenue machines targeting the poor and middle class.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

...but lets not pretend that the reason you identify police on Waze exists for any other reason but to let other speeding drivers know to slow down until they pass the cop and speed back up to well above the speed limit.

it also causes traffic jams when cops pull people over. It's for route selection. You can "avoid" routes that may have speed traps, as well as possible slow-spots from cops pulling people over.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

...but lets not pretend that the reason you identify police on Waze exists for any other reason but to let other speeding drivers know to slow down until they pass the cop and speed back up to well above the speed limit.

Or maybe people want to go where the police are not. Not for nefarious reasons, but for safety.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[w_dragon]

To me it would make sense to separate traffic enforcement from policing. Create a traffic patrol that has only very limited police powers to enforce the traffic laws, and let them call in the police if there's something they can't deal with. They have less power so can be paid less, and it may lower the risk of violence at a traffic stop if the dealer in the car knows the worst the person pulling him over can do is write a ticket for speeding. Then the police are free to deal with crimes that people actually care about and can work on improving their image.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Etherwalk]

Just the download counter for the app could be read as a social barometer of public trust.

It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.

It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.

The cop locator does two things for the ap. It lets people speed, I suppose. But the only situation where I've seen it used is really for fun, in a spot-the-cop kind of way.

That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.

(It is not productive employment--it pays something like 30-60K/yr with a high likelihood of getting caught each year, IIRC).

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[s.petry]

It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part.

Well, "Save the children" and "all men are rapists" have already been overused, they had to come up with some type of appeal to emotion slogan to be taken seriously right?

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[nolife]

Why limit it to 5 under, why not 10 or 15 under? It's funny that YOUR standard is right and everyone else is wrong.
I can drive for weeks on end and not tailgate anyone at all or get stressed when someone is in a crosswalk, let people merge in front of me at the last minute in a squeeze or wave people on from a side street in traffic, and slow down and cautiously drive around bikes and I am 100% stress free doing that. I do that at 15 under or possibly even 15 over the posted speed limit.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[mlynx]

This is one of the most sensible ideas I've read online in ages!

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[JamieMcGuigan]

It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part.

Presumably anybody using this app to search for cops is going to be using it to deliberately avoid coming in contact with any cops. This outcome is actually the lowest risk outcome for any type of police encounter.

The way this has been phrased, you would almost imagine that there are anti-police death squads roaming the city, looking for isolated police units far away from backup and slowly picking them off with a sniper rifle.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[mlynx]

Ah, an AC who has never been harassed by a cop. Sorry pal, once it happens, you'll never feel the same level of trust that you do now. Ignorance == Bliss

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[slashdot_commentator]

It's not a cop locating app, it's an app to suggest alternate routes of travel around congested areas. It just has a feature to show where police are, but that's not the purpose of it.

It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part. That being said, a lot of cops are feeling really under attack these days because of the public outrage over the last few months and the cops who were ambushed in NYC--like, their families are really worried about them, and I Can respect that.

Then you're as stupid as the cops. Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public. Cops are scared of "stalkers"? As if stalkers wouldn't exist without a phone app??? Should cops be scared of breathing city air? Should we be providing them breathing masks along with their bulletproof vests and 17 round firearms?

Those two cops that were murdered in NYC were not killed because of an app. They were killed because a deranged shitbag got the jump on them. If cops feel justified killing misdemeanor lifestyle criminals with dangerous, prohibited chokeholds, then they should not feel like the people who pay their salaries support them.

Use your brain. The cops don't want waze because it makes it harder for them to meet their arrest quotas. That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have

That being said, people would be dumb not to check it before robbing a bank, I suppose. Of course, most people who rob banks are pretty dumb.

Only a moron would depend on a voluntary participation app to keep him from getting arrested in a bank robbery. Don't go into crime, you'd get arrested with the other dumbasses.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

While this sounds sort of second grade...

    Cops have no problem dishing out surveillance, yet they seem to cry when ever citizens start watching them. I second the "Tough Shit" statement.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

What vehicle only weighs 2000lbs? Seriously, I want it. That's almost Ariel Atom light. Put a mouse in it.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

I've been speeding safely for 30+ years. That includes devoting significant brain time to scanning for cops. No wrecks, no tickets.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Maxo-Texas]

Agreed and trapster and other apps do the same crowdsourced speed trap locating trick.

Trapster had better audio alerts but they don't work on my new phone so I use waze now.
It also flagged "likely" speed traps even when the police were not yet reported in the location.

Using the app to locate a speedtrap is about as productive as driving along the road and observing parked police cars then circling back around and attacking them now that you know where they are.

The police have a problem because they have been killing united states citizens at a rate of roughly 1200* citizens per year (via 528 validated trustworthy news source reported face page reports). More of those citizens killed by united states police were children than all the citizens killed by the police forces of england, france, and germany combined. It is literally (not figuratively) about 120* citizens vs under 20 citizens in england, france, and germany total per year.

Not to mention countless beatings, illegitimate property seizures, and a solid reputation of "good cops" standing aside doing nothing while the "bad" cops commit crimes.

*People who are police officers killed about 1450 citizens but 528.com found that about 200 of the killings were not related to their police status or police duties.

** I support the police and donate to the police fund but our police are out of control and have terrible community relations. We need to get them out of dealing with drug gangs and drug money and swat teams and military equipment. Move that activity to the FBI and return the police to ordinary police enforcement actions. Having a tank and heavy automatic weapons misleads them into killing 7 year old girls when they were at the wrong address.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

Most people can't drive safely at 5 under. Too many try.

The real problem is lack of focus on driving. It's a simple thing; focus on your driving, maintain the machine.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[jmauro]

Auto accident deaths number about 33,000 per year in the U.S. Not only is it not a leading cause of death, it doesn't even make the top 10. Hell, more people are accidently poisoned each year (38,000) then die in car accidents.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say I disagree with your premise. Sure, traffic safety is important. As an older guy with two young kids and a wife that freaks out when I drive more than 5 mph, I always drive at or slightly under speed limit. I still like knowing where the cops are. Your argument is akin to just do nothing wrong and the NSA will not pose problems for you while they read your emails.

I lived abroad for 10 years in Asia pursing a banking career, I came back with my family about six months back. In this time, I have had two highly negative interactions with the US police and I am not an aggressive person.l I NEVER had this issue over 10 years in Vietnam, Hong Kong, Japan, China or Indonesia. I do not trust them and I do not want to interact with them.

Furthermore, I was not issued a ticket or a summons either time. So, proves I was doing nothing wrong in the first instance. However, I did lose one hour of my life for no good reason other than cop ego feeding. I had to go through a DUI check and a breathlyzer test (result 0.00 BAC), a search of me and my vehicle, putting my hands behind my back, numerous irrelevant personal questions and boatloads of attitude including telling how I have to stand so as to not threaten them. This is at a ROUTINE SCHEDULED checkpoint where there at like 30 cops, floodlights, cameras, whatever. This is at a fookin sobriety check point which is apparently a civil liberties exclusion zone.

There are serious problems with law enforcement in the US. People should have every right to watch, video, tape and otherwise contain the police as any lawful democracy should.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[pixelpusher220]

That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have

Well it does get people to slow down too. :) And also, warning people about speed traps is free speech according to the legal system linky

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[pixelpusher220]

Offering information on how to get away with breaking traffic laws is wrong

Since most states now have 'move over' laws requiring you to give a lane of clearance to police and emergency personnel...this is provably making police SAFER. We're trying to get people to follow the law - both the speed law and the safety law.

That the this attack on waze came under the false pretense of 'officer safety is the height of hypocrisy

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[pixelpusher220]

his point is towns like Hampton, FL or Waldo, FL.

Towns that literally re-drew their jurisdictions to cover a slice of a high volume highway and set about becoming the one of the worst speed traps in the US. Look at the maps. Hampton literally is a square with one long sliver out to the highway. Only one reason to have that.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[duke_cheetah2003]

I guarantee that your life will not be adversely affected if you were to just drive 5mph BELOW the speed limit everywhere you went, all the time. In fact, you could even save someone's life, will experience less stress, and usually save money on gas and tires.

Sorry bro, logic fail here. There are many cases where driving less than the speed limit is actually MORE of a hazard than driving the correct speed for the highway. I can't even begin to tell you how many times a slow driver has caused problems or even an accident. They are just as much a hazard as the speeders.

People just need to pay attention to what is going on and drive speeds that are appropriate to the conditions of the road, including weather and other drivers. In my opinion, speed limits (on freeways & highways, mind you, on city streets I agree everyone should be VERY close to the limit posted) are more of a 'recommendation.' Having just returned from a roadtrip into and out of the San Diego CA area, I can tell you, most people drive faster than the posted limits, but not excessively. Most drivers seem to pick a speed that is safe for the conditions. It's the idiots who have no clue how to drive and drive inappropriate speeds (faster or slower than the posted limit) that are causing problems.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

> It's not a cop locating app,

That is literally all I use it for.

I'm just saying.

I speed all the time and I use Waze to know when to slow down.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[nolife]

I've slowed down and drive much less aggressive as I've aged. Not because I feel more responsible now or that I was carefree when I was younger. I just don't have the awareness I used to have when I was younger and I am not as comfortable pushing things. It takes me much longer to verify no one is next to me before changing lanes, I used to just whip my head around, scan my mirror and then go, it takes me longer to refocus when I look in my rear view mirror or down at the speedo and back forward again, my vision is not as good as it used. I could take a 300 mile trip at night and remember almost every car I passed or passed me. Scope out areas where police might be like openings in the median or after bridges and down hills. I knew exactly what was around me, approaching, and pulling away at every moment. I was constantly scanning everywhere. I don't do most of that anymore, I just kind of... drive. I don't even use my detectors anymore. Although I still love to take trips and get in the car and go, I am just not "into" driving like I used to be. I'm probably not as "safe" as I used to be but at least I am going relatively slower than I used to.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

Yes, it gets people to slow down until immediately after the speed trap, then they speed up again.

So the only result is traffic congestion and speeding tickets.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[jdzielny]

That's what happens when cops act like criminal street gangs instead of officers of the law. There's a reason we have the Second Amendment, and it's not hunting. Guns are the ultimate playing field leveler.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[ihtoit]

Its the cops' job to put themselves into "dangerous" situations in order to protect the public.

What a load of bollocks. IT IS NOT a cops job to put his own life on the line to protect ANY member of the public. HIS JOB is to uphold the Law UP TO the point where he knowingly puts his own life in danger - at which point, his own life becomes his single priority.

YOU DO NOT have the right to be protected by anybody else. Your own personal safety is your own personal problem. Should you choose to employ someone else to protect you, they do so on the understanding between you, which usually precludes them taking a bullet for you and remains within the letter of the Law.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AvitarX]

Cops feel under attack because of decades of escalating their own protection.

For better or for worse (and I have a personal opinion of worse, but I don't really know), police are less in touch with their communities than in the past.

The distance means that even the law abiding citizens only have negative interactions with the police (this is where my opinion is formed). Once the "good" people of a questionable community no longer support the police and want to help them, you get a feedback loop where the police rapidly become only the enemy.

I don't know how to fix it, but if the police weren't the enemy already, fergeson would not have happened.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Jane Q. Public]

The only way it would put cops in danger were if someone were out there with the sole intention of killing cops... and not some particular cop, but any cop. Because the app just says "cop", not who.

So either this sherriff's association has their heads completely up their asses, or what they're really doing is boo-hooing over the fact that people are interfering with their daily traffic ticket quota. Which means they have their heads up their asses, because what they should be doing is solving crimes.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[oobayly]

Ariel atoms weight about 600kg (1350lb), my old Westfield weighed 425kg (according to the DVLA), but now comparing it to the atom I'm not so sure. Is was probably more like 640kg.

According to this website, their FW400 with a carbon fibre monocoque was 400kg.
http://westfield-world.com/inf...

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[wonkey_monkey]

It's not causing more speeding but less.

Not necessarily. It makes it easier for speeders to avoid being caught. It might reduce speeding at the specific location that a speed trap has been reported, but it's not going to make any difference to other locations (and might just, in fact, lead to more speeding there since drivers will know that at least some of the cops are engaged elsewhere).

Not that I think the practice should be banned - that's going way too far. Discouraged, perhaps, but if you can't report a publicly visible fact to another human being then I don't know what the world's coming to. "There's a government official performing an official duty at location X" is certainly not stalking in the same category of reporting on Facebook that "I followed my ex to the supermarket and she bought panties." *

* totally made up example.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[houghi]

One does not exclude the other. In Belgium the police often announces when they are going to do alcohol checks or speed checks. Many fixed camera's on the highway are indicated by signs that there is a camera.
Next to that they also do unannounced speed controls. However that might be just a camera.
On the radio they are often announced where they are. For that reason they stay there one or maximum two hours and go to the next place.

So one does not exclude the other. They can be out in public AND stealty at the same time.

As for the tickets. In Finland the tickets are linked to your income. So if some billionaire gets a ticket, he will pay a LOT and he will feel it. (No, he will not go bankrupt)

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[vux984]

I've been speeding safely for 30+ years.

Yeah, that's what everyone says until they have an accident.
Statistically most people do not have speed related accidents even if they speed. So statisically there's a lot of people like you who think they "speed safely" but many of them don't. The odds just haven't caught up with them.

That includes devoting significant brain time to scanning for cops.

Well, good. I'm glad to see your spending signficant time scanning bushes for cops. It would be a shame if that brain time was devoted to actually driving safely.

Maybe your above average. Maybe you really are great driver.

Then again, my grandfather was absolutely TERRIBLE. He went his whole life and died of old age without any tickets or wrecks too. But as kids my parents wouldn't let us in a car if he was driving, and as adults we understood why, why parents were releived when he gave up his license at 85 voluntarily, before killing someone. But how we went 65+ years behind the wheel without killing anyone, kiling himself, or even being pulled over, is nothing short of a miracle.

He thought he was a safe driver too and always trotted out his pristine driving record as "proof" too. So maybe that's you.

Or maybe not you, but its a lot of people who talk the same talk as you.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AmiMoJo]

I don't speed but I also use it all the time to know when to slow down. I was recently doing 29 and a mobile trap claimed I was doing 35. Fortunately I have video camera evidence from the car to prove that I wasn't, but it means I have to go to court and argue it. The only way to safely avoid that is to do about 10 MPH under the limit around speed traps, even if it pisses off all the other drivers.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Aqualung812]

I speed all the time and I use Waze to know when to slow down.

Because Waze can't track police on the move (which have been how I've been caught speeding most of the time), I can't imagine it is a great system for this.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[plover]

I was recently doing 29 and a mobile trap claimed I was doing 35. Fortunately I have video camera evidence from the car to prove that I wasn't, but it means I have to go to court and argue it.

You might want to check your camera before heading into court. I have a gray market cam from DX.com that under-reports speed by a wide margin (it displays about 60MPH when my speedometer shows 70); when I use the viewing app they provided, it shows the GPS-plotted path on Google maps, and it shows my true speed.

You want to be sure it's accurate because there is no benefit to you in angering a judge by presenting incorrect evidence.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[VAXcat]

Speeding is far from the biggest contributor to traffic accidents. Illegal and poorly made left turns are far more dangerous and cause far more accidents - yet you never hear fo the cops setting upa left turn trap. Why? It's too hard and doesn't generate the revenue that issuing speeding tickets does.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[VAXcat]

You were lucky - here in Houston, if you pass the roadside breath test, the cops routinely charge you with being intoxicated on drugs, rather than admit you weren't impaired and shouldn't have been pulled over. That's one of the reasons lawyers here recommend that you don't take the breath test at all.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[cayenne8]

I looked into it...but man, after reading the TOS for Waze....I'm very hesitant to download it much less sign up for it...the amount of info they seem to get from you is pretty bad. It tracks you, and keeps all the data from your travels.

I'd be happy to use an app that didn't track me so much, but to give voluntary info on police speed trap warnings, and traffic incidents, but I don't want them keeping my travel data and tracking me in real time.

This thing looks like a privacy nightmare from the TOS.

I"ve used an older app called "Trapster" which was a bit more anonymous and allowed folks to report speed traps and traffic cameras, etc. I think it fell a bit into dis-use which makes these kind of apps useful or not, but man, I don't like all the tracking and all that Waze does and the information it collects and seems to keep. Otherwise I'd jump on board big time.

Would be nice to know where speed traps and DWI roadblocks are set up when driving.

I prefer to avoid the police while out no matter what the cause.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[hackwrench]

This is generally about the interstate, there are on crosswalks on the interstate.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[hackwrench]

When nearly everyone is going 70 in a stretch of road marked 55, a person going 55 would be the one not driving safely.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Coren22]

What was that saying on the side of police cars?

To serve and protect I believe it was, so their job is not to protect? Than what exactly is their purpose?

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[NoZart]

I dunno how it is in america (or any other country for that matter) but where i live, speedometers in cars are required by law to over-report speeds by a small percentage.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[sociocapitalist]

It's BS to say it's putting cops' lives at risk, for the most part.

Presumably anybody using this app to search for cops is going to be using it to deliberately avoid coming in contact with any cops. This outcome is actually the lowest risk outcome for any type of police encounter.

The way this has been phrased, you would almost imagine that there are anti-police death squads roaming the city, looking for isolated police units far away from backup and slowly picking them off with a sniper rifle.

The recent cop killings in France are enough to not laugh at the idea, though I doubt that taking cop spotting off waze would make any difference in reality.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Coren22]

This morning I reported a policeman on my way to work. They were assisting in cleaning up an accident, I feel that there is no reason not to report it. I would also report police on a policeman on the side of the road writing a ticket, you know why? That way he is less likely to be hit by a car that might not see him in time.

The only use is not for speed traps, and saying it is is only lying.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[LifesABeach]

I remember a time when Law Enforcement didn't want cameras on themselves for very much the same reasons. We now find out that when cameras are attached to Law Enforcement types, that violence is reduced. There is concrete evidence that shows that when Law Enforcement tones down the environment that violence is reduced. Law Enforcement becomes safer when it becomes a part of the Community.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

I believe you're referring to fivethirtyeight.com not "528.com". And this article in particular:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/dat...

So, just to be fair, the combined population of the three nations you mentioned is ~119 million, and the U.S. is at 316 million.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

The police officer setting up the speed trap already caused that traffic congestion, the app would stop people from hard breaking the second they saw the police officer with his radar gun.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

Revenue collection via cop is also wrong, as are the arbitrarily low speed limits in many areas. If you'd like to argue safety, then I'll gladly counter that. You rarely see cops pull drivers over for tailgating, impeding traffic, or many other unsafe acts of drivers, they go after the high volume, high revenue. It may be the law, but it's wrong.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

That's not the argument of most police associations. If it were then they'd be for the expansion of gun rights. They want to be the only protection in town and if they can't help you then tough luck.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[gfxguy]

I don't know if it's required, but I believe they routinely do. My GPS consistently shows a few more MPH than my speedometer, and when I've taken long trips I've never gone as far as my speedometer told me I should have gone (based on MPH reported by my speedometer and keeping an eye on mile markers).

Back to the topic at hand, though, locations of police spotted in public locations is public information. This is the type of information that "wants to be free." My father was a police officer, I have several relatives who are still police officers, Several friends of my family are police officers... I highly respect them and, IMO, understand their point of view better than your average person. After seeing all the people lying, resisting, spitting in faces of police officers... I think that they have a LOT more restraint than most people are capable of. While it bothers me that police officers break, it's hardly surprising when the average person hates and distrusts them, despite the fact that 99% of the time they are good people doing their job... it's that tiny fraction that doesn't that makes the news, and colors people's perspectives.

I use waze... and I'll thumb up police reports if I see them, but I never slow down - because I'm not speeding to an extent where the cop would care. Around here the police on the interstates have a detrimental effect on commuter traffic, because when people see cops they slow down to 5 to 10 MPH below the limit, and it pisses me off. I cruise by police doing 5MPH over the limit and have never gotten a ticket. The very rare cases I've heard of people getting tickets for less than 5MPH over the limit have all been dismissed by the court. One department around here (at least) is ordered not to bother anybody doing less than 10MPH over the limit.

I give no credence to this complaint. I know that, in some locations, the police even use waze to see where they're being reported. Then they can move, they can "not there" the report - being a voluntary app (that I've only submitted information for twice because, hey, I'm driving here!) I find most of the reports dubious at best, and most of the time don't even see the cops that are supposed to be there.

The benefits of Waze over something like google maps is not the cop reporting - it's the accident and slow traffic reporting, it's the combined information from 100s or 1000s of "wazers" to help guide you around problem areas. The last time waze told me to detour and I didn't, I got stuck in an hour and a half of traffic I could have avoided.... never again.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[gfxguy]

It's a terrible system... and the majority of police reports I've seen are always in the same spots. This is in/near big city Atlanta... these are not speed traps since traffic can't possibly flow that fast anyway. It's the odd idiot in the HOV or luxury lanes going 80 that get nailed, not your average commuter that might take a 5 to 10mph "liberty" with the speed limit.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

Omg, upmod pls.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

I don't need superhuman ability to control my 4700lb vehicle at speeds above the arbitrarily low limits posted in many areas. I've driven safely for over 40 years, and typically above the limit, to either what I believe is safe for conditions, or what will keep me from getting pulled over, which ever is lower. I put value on my time, and you're welcome to view it differently, but I have better things to do than sit in a car. While nothing is perfectly safe, the point of transportation is to go from A to B as quickly as possible within a reasonable level of risk.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

Mathematical question: if everyone drove 150 miles per hour in the same direction at what point would they collide? I'd suggest that the likelihood of an accident is higher from a driver not adapting to the speed of traffic than someone just speeding.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[gfxguy]

Agreed.... speeding is a lot less heinous and much less annoying to other drivers than tailgating, weaving, cutting people off, failing to signal, signalling when not turning or changing lanes, using high beams in traffic, and host of other things.... and I've NEVER heard of anyone getting tickets for those things because speeding tickets can result in objective evidence (radar or speedometer readings). I've seen people turn left from the right lane, and right from the left lane (only once causing an accident, though). There is, IMO, a growing mentality of "my mistakes are not my problem... they're yours!" where someone failed to be in the correct lane at the correct time, so they just force their way where they want to go instead of continuing the way they were committed to and turning safely farther up the road. I see this all the time.... if I missed my turn I would turn at the next location is possible, maybe making a u-turn or something - I would never in a million years cut across several lanes of traffic at the last second because of my mistake.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

Didn't you hear? Highway police officers have been transferred to state revenue agencies to better streamline their work. It's paying off big time. The millions of dollars they are raking in is almost paying for their pensions.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Chelloveck]

Being a police officer is not meant to be about being a revenue machines on the clock but a peace officer assisting the public in upholding the law and providing a first response emergency service.

Aww, that's so cute. Look everyone, someone who's not completely jaded and cynical yet!

Yes, if police wanted to prevent minor traffic infractions that's exactly what they'd do. However, they typically use unmarked cars or hide their marked cars behind corners, trees, or other obstructions so they can't be seen by oncoming traffic. Then they wait for someone to come zipping by. Cha-ching!

Slightly less cynically, the practice of hiding and pouncing should actually reduce speeders by inducing a sense of doubt. Potential hiding places are everywhere, you'd better drive the limit because you never know when there's a cop back there. In theory it multiplies the effect of a sparse police force. In practice it doesn't work that way because the odds of getting pulled over are still pretty darned low.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

Unfortunately I feel your good idea would not be used to separate the legitimate need to enforce the speed laws compared to finding a way to raise more revenue. They'd probably keep the same amount of police officers and then raise another speeding department. Thus contributing to added expense and bureaucracy and forcing the speed department to justify their positions with increased ticketing.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[gfxguy]

I don't know why people are scared of the police. The vast majority of them are good people just doing their job trying to keep you safe. People's opinions of them are colored by ubiquitous news stories of the tiny fraction of bad cops, and their depiction in popular media. I was a passenger in a friends car when a police car pulled up next to us at a red light. I looked over, the cop looked over, I gave a friendly wave, he waved back. My friend went ballistic. "Are you trying to get me a ticket?"

I asked "Why? Are you doing something wrong?"

"No."

"Then what's your f#@$king problem?"

I've gotten several speeding tickets in my life; been involved in several accidents (not related to speeding and not my fault), and I've never had a negative experience with a police officer... when they ask to see my license and registration, instead of arguing with them, I hand it over. I was speeding, they pull me over, I know I was speeding... I've never seen cop give anyone a hard time unless they started arguing about it.

Does it happen that there are bad cops? Of course... but they're in the distinct minority. With all these cop haters on slashdot, you can be guaranteed they're happy enough a cop is around when they need one.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Whorhay]

I think the risk is overblown, honestly. I looked up the FBI stats recently and they only managed to identify 50% or so of the suspects, that's not even apprehend, just identify. The money while not awesome is tax free so goes a bit further than a salary of the same amount. It also doesn't preclude having a regular job or earning money through other means.

I think the safer bet though would be to steal armored cars transporting large sums of money. Take out the guards using tear gas and bean bag shotguns. Load the whole truck into a faraday cage in a larger truck and take it somewhere safe to unload and sort out the dye packs.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[gfxguy]

A lot of the cases of police reports that I've encountered are police being there from an accident... or they're already giving someone a ticket (IOW, they're not going to jump in their car and come after you).

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[drfred79]

I was a law abiding citizen walking down the road. A police officer stopped me, frisked me, and denigrated me with no justification. Examples like that are why law abiding people have a fear of the police.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Agent0013]

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[linuxrocks123]

The way this has been phrased, you would almost imagine that there are anti-police death squads roaming the city, looking for isolated police units far away from backup and slowly picking them off with a sniper rifle.

Dude ... don't give away the plot for the next Die Hard movie!

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Gliscameria]

Put yourself in the head of someone that just wants to kill cops. Do you really think you need an app to find a random cop? You could, I don't know... call them and report something so they show up, or create some anonymous mayhem and wait. Like it was said above, the only way you'd see this used by criminals is to avoid the police.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dj245]

I dunno how it is in america (or any other country for that matter) but where i live, speedometers in cars are required by law to over-report speeds by a small percentage.

I don't think the USA has such rules. The issue is most likely because the speedometer measures tire rotation with an assumed tire diameter. New tires will indicate close to the true speed, but as the tire wears down, it has to rotate more to travel the same difference, and therefore the reported speed will be higher than true speed.

Car manufacturers would get a lot of complaints if their speedometers were underreporting the speed, so they probably add a little margin to ensure that doesn't happen.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

When you do something tedious, you get bored, and that's as bad as driving while distracted. Driving needs to be an active participation exercise. Intense discussions (on a phone or with a passenger), should be minimized, along with any other distraction. If you want to go slower, that's fine, but keep to the right...the left lane is for faster traffic, and passing, not daydreaming and sightseeing.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

You assume to know the emotion of those replying to your post in an insulting manner ("road-rager response"). Do you expect that to win minds or influence people? You justify your position with inaccurate information regarding the rate of auto deaths. Please check your facts before posting.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[ihtoit]

"To Serve and Protect" does NOT infer "Take a bullet for Joe Sixpack". Their OATH is to SERVE the Public Trust and to PROTECT the Sanctity of the Constitution of the United States.

From the Utah State Police Oath of Office, Article IV Section X of the Utah Constitution:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

The International Association of Chiefs of Police goes further in actually defining terms with its own Oath of Office:

"On my honour,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve."

Before any officer takes the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, it is important that he/she understands what it means. An oath is a solemn pledge someone makes when he/she sincerely intends to do what he/she says.

Honor means that one's word is given as a guarantee.
Betray is defined as breaking faith with the public trust.
Badge is the symbol of your office.
Integrity is being the same person in both private and public life.
Character means the qualities that distinguish an individual.
Public trust is a charge of duty imposed in faith toward those you serve.
Courage is having the strength to withstand unethical pressure, fear or danger.
Accountability means that you are answerable and responsible to your oath of office.
Community is the jurisdiction and citizens served.

From those two examples alone, it can be seen that the police Oath is not to protect persons or property, but to protect the letter and spirit of the Law as it is intended. The ONLY personal pledge made by any LEO is that made by British Constables who swear allegiance to the Head of State (currently Elizabeth Windsor, AKA, Re. II), which means at any time any Constable may be called to attend Her Royal Personage and by his Oath he MUST obey. That does NOT mean he takes a bullet for her. She has her own private army for that and they get paid an OBSCENE amount of money. She takes her own personal safety and takes personal responsibility for it, same as everybody else. It is only by accident of birth that her protection gets to run around with guns.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

So, to the idea of "flood the Waze api with virtual police officers", I think they'd need assistance from the developers to make that work. Inaccurate reports are flagged, and if I'm not mistaken, enough of them keeps you from actually showing them. It give the tool some credibility keeping jerks from posting stuff that's not there.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[jfengel]

It's best if people all move at more or less the same speed. It keeps them better spaced. People driving much slower than that can cause as many difficulties as people driving much faster.

We recognize the dangers of driving too fast, and most people try to keep it to near the speed limit, at least as long as the limit is set properly. Some are set very badly, and that's hazardous. You get a mix of people traveling at a safe but illegal speed with people obeying the law.

Fortunately, I've found that most speed limits aren't too badly off. I'm sure there are jurisdictions where they're deliberately mis-setting them as revenue generators, but I don't encounter many of them. (I can name one not too far from my house, where a four-lane divided road with minimal access has a 30 MPH speed limit... and a speed camera on a big downhill leg. That's going to get people killed, because everybody who knows about the speed limit jams on their brakes and goes 25. And the road is a major arterial, or it could be, if they didn't deliberately limit the flow rate so badly. The road is, of course, a nightmare at rush hour and a speed-trap revenue source the rest of the time.)

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, the population is about 200 million (give a current google).

So it's about 40 citizens killed by police vs 1240 citizens killed by united states poice.

The list of citizens killed in uk by police in 2014 is
Dean Joseph (5 September 2014 in London)
That's it.
We don't even officially track about 800 citizen deaths at the hands of united states police.

Thanks for the link! It was late- I was tired.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

Let me guess, your a great driver, but have had 3 wrecks in the last 5 years? Only two were your fault, no matter what the judge said?

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit. Speed limits are set for revenue generation.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[pixelpusher220]

law concerning public safety

This is where your concept falters. These weren't laws for the public safety. They were abusing such laws to make money. So egregiously in fact that the police department in Waldo was literally disbanded by the state for their flagrant violations.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[duke_cheetah2003]

Well, it sounds good on paper, but most people drive faster than the speed limit, making the slow drivers very much a serious hazard. So, frankly, you being the goodie-two-shoes driver is actually putting you at higher risk of an accident. Sorry about that. The BEST speed to choose when driving on the highway is the speed the traffic around you is going, to minimize lane changes by other drivers (the cause of many accidents.) So frankly, you are in the minority and therefore the problem, not the speeders. Drive a safe and responsible speed for the roads you're on, and it's often not the posted limits.

Goodie-two-shoes driving sounds great on paper, but in practice.. well, it's going to get you killed man. If not by an accident, then by a road-raging driver who shoots you or runs you off the road.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[dcw3]

Luck has zero to do with my driving skill or lack of it. Going the a speed that is safe for the conditions matters, not the arbitrary number you believe. You won't be killed by me unless you do something stupid, such as cut me off, or slam on the brakes in front of me. I won't tailgate you, and I won't cause you to have an accident, but I sure as shit will not live my life to your whims of what the speed limit should be. So, what makes sense? I never speed through neighborhoods...too much chance of a kid or pet darting into traffic between parked cars. I don't speed in poor weather conditions. And, depending upon what vehicle I'm driving, I don't speed in vehicles with poor handling. I've also slowed down, just a smidge, because I'm aware that my reaction time isn't what it used to be, but was still good enough to win an autocross just last Fall.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

How about just slow the fsck down when you are piloting 2,000 lbs of metal?

Because the stats show that the faster you go, the safer you are. No, really. I know your "common sense" says the opposite. But reality trumps an unsupported opinion.

I guarantee that your life will not be adversely affected if you were to just drive 5mph BELOW the speed limit everywhere you went,

Aside from getting killed by the other drivers you are holding up.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

Yes, telling people to 'slow down' when driving cars is bad advice. This must be why auto accidents are a leading cause of death and injury in the US.

When the national speed limit went from 55 to 65, deaths dropped. When the limit was removed (many going to 70, one up to 100), the deaths dropped. The higher the limits, the lower the deaths. The higher the speeds, the lower the deaths.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

That's "preventable" deaths. Auto deaths aren't "preventable" in that you must travel. They craft statistics like that to hide cancer, heart disease and other "preventable" deaths that are less directly caused. It's amazing how much the statistics are crafted to prove a point, not to describe reality.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[HornWumpus]

A mouse would twist that Brit thing in half.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[oobayly]

Yeah, but they're insanely good fun to drive - no traction control, no ABS and power-to-weight of more than 300bhp/tonne (483 for an Atom). You do have to accept that if you get hit by anything larger than a 4x4, you're probably not going to come out alive, so it certainly improved my driving technique: visibility, visibility, visibility & never assume that people realise how fast you can accelerate.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm very hesitant to download it much less sign up for it...the amount of info they seem to get from you is pretty bad.

Waze wasn't bad about collecting information until it was acquired by Google.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

It is the norm to exceed the speed limit, as the limits are usually set well below the safe settings.

The ignorance is on the side of those who don't know what causes crashes.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[nanoflower]

Yes, but if someone really wants to kill cops then it should be obvious that you head to where they congregate. So the nearest place to get a meal near the precinct or the nearest precinct will get a large number in one place. Of course it will also lead to your death if you go in guns blazing but that seems to be the purpose behind many of the shootings.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[AK Marc]

It is true. It's easy for you to look up the years those things happened and deaths in the US. Though the small minded people like yourself will refuse to look at the science, and will cling to the religion of "speed kills" no matter what proof you are presented with.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[sociocapitalist]

Yes, but if someone really wants to kill cops then it should be obvious that you head to where they congregate. So the nearest place to get a meal near the precinct or the nearest precinct will get a large number in one place. Of course it will also lead to your death if you go in guns blazing but that seems to be the purpose behind many of the shootings.

Not at all. They target alone or almost alone cops and then they run away.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[fxsoap]

if it were to be removed, people would just use "Pothole" or some other code to represent the same threat. The app/idea itself would need to be shut down

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Triklyn]

... for like a month of work? that's pretty lucrative.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[jfengel]

Oh, I certainly don't: there's a permanent speed trap there.

It's conceivable that there's a reason for it. The road as a whole should be a major arterial, but it's got an awful lot of stop lights. (This is just outside of Washington, DC, which has practically no proper arterials.) At rush hour, allowing people to go faster on this section than the overall speed of the road would be worse for traffic.

What's really needed is to substantially restrict access to that road and make it a highway, though I'm sure that the businesses and residences along that road would hate it. The problem is systemic: there are no arteries and nobody wants to turn their stretch of road into one. There are zero interstates, so the roads are under a variety of local jurisdictions. I'm sure plenty of people complained to the county and state about that segment of road, but it's just a disaster for the whole region to deal with. And so it isn't.

Er, anyway, that's kinda beside the point, which is really that what's needed is for the traffic engineers to design for steady flow and for people to follow it, even if they'd be more comfortable at some other speed, especially when lanes are limited. But it's easier said than done in a metropolitan area.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[plover]

That's not the case here, and it's irrelevant. When I noticed the discrepancy between my camera's reported speed and my speedometer, I then compared it with a GPS-based speedometer app in my iPhone. The iPhone and car speedometer were in perfect sync. The camera-indicated speed was indeed extremely low, and so low that I have to think it was made deliberately wrong in order to provide misleading information in court, to fight in jurisdictions where such things are overlooked.

Let's say I was in court for some kind of accident, and I was going 70 MPH in a 60 MPH zone. The video recording of the crash shows the camera says 60 MPH, so it never comes up that I'm partially at fault because I was speeding. The other party in the crash is screwed by faulty evidence.

Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[hackwrench]

It's more a lack of trust in the government to always do the right thing than anything else.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[s.petry]

Haha, of course you immediately jump to the false accusation in an attempt to try and salvage your original failed logic. Of course you can't rationally back your original bullshit, so have to resort to additional fallacy arguments to support your original.

For your information: I have had 0 accidents, 0 tickets, and been driving for over 30 years. If I was a "road-rager", I would at least have had something happen in over 3 decades of driving. I'm not the "slow" guy either, because those guys get into at least as many accidents as the speeders (and most studies show that they cause more accidents).

I gave the points where you were wrong. Invalid generalization, therefor your logic is also invalid. There is no way to salvage broken logic, so scrap your opinion and start over.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[s.petry]

If there were gangs out killing cops, they would not be in need of an application like Waze to do it. The two NYC cops that were killed a couple months ago were not tracked by anything. The killings were by what appears to be a vigilante that wanted to kill "any" cop.

They psychology behind that is a different thread and story, but the point about being "tracked" is valid. Cops drive in marked cars and wear uniforms. Someone actually "hunting" them would not need an application. In fact it would probably be stupid to do so, because of all the data the application tracking (it would limit suspects).

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[sociocapitalist]

If there were gangs out killing cops, they would not be in need of an application like Waze to do it. The two NYC cops that were killed a couple months ago were not tracked by anything. The killings were by what appears to be a vigilante that wanted to kill "any" cop.

They psychology behind that is a different thread and story, but the point about being "tracked" is valid. Cops drive in marked cars and wear uniforms. Someone actually "hunting" them would not need an application. In fact it would probably be stupid to do so, because of all the data the application tracking (it would limit suspects).

I also said that it wouldn't make any difference in reality, if you read my post to the end, to take the functionality out of waze.

That being said, such an app could be used to find isolated groups of police (i.e. middle of the night speed traps in the middle of nowhere) to attack which means that the idea is not completely invalid.

There is no shortage of stupid or tech ignorant people in the world so I wouldn't exactly use that as a proof that people would not use an app to find police to attack.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[s.petry]

I realize your original intent, I was agreeing and not intending to be argumentative.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[shutdown -p now]

People's opinions of them are colored by ubiquitous news stories of the tiny fraction of bad cops

What you don't seem to comprehend is that for every one of that "tiny fraction" of bad cops who fuck with citizens directly, there are at least a dozen that see it all but say nothing out of a misguided sense of professional solidarity that is very extreme in that profession. See "blue code of silence" on Wikipedia for numerous examples.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[sociocapitalist]

I realize your original intent, I was agreeing and not intending to be argumentative.

I see, okay thank you for the clarification - no doubt I am a bit defensive as I'm kind of used to people on this site being either aggressive or insulting :-)

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[Etherwalk]

For the most part, a policeman has almost absolute authority over you out on the street. If they say you were not wearing a seat belt because you took it off after you were pulled over so that you could reach your proof of insurance, well, then you get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt while driving. I have been called in for Jury duty. That means that I will now be subject to the arbitrary whims of whom ever is in charge. Sorry, there was an accident on the expressway and I was stuck for 40 minutes on the expressway so I am 30 minutes late. What a judge may choose to do if that holds up his court for 10 minutes is arbitrary and will not really have my best interest in mind.

In other words, I agree, lower exposure is better. I would choose to avoid blockades and searches. No exposure, no arbitrary decisions.

The police order has to be lawful. Failure to obey a lawful police order is a crime, but if the order is not lawful, you don't have to obey. Keep in mind, however, the cops are doing a job where they are dealing with a lot of unreasonable people, so it is generally best to be and act polite, for some value of polite that does not include consenting to a search.

Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men?

[RockDoctor]

Also, the watchmen don't like being watched? Tough shit.

It's hardly a novel sentiment. Juvenal was more poetic about it about 100AD :

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Cognitive Dissonance

[Derling Whirvish]

Is it about avoiding policemen altogether or tracking them down? If you use both essentially opposite arguments in one paragraph, you are more or less throwing sh... um, stuff to see what sticks. Purely scare-mongering.

What happened to "Bring it on"?!

[mi]

Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk.

Huh?

Police are (or supposed to be) our first line of defense against criminals and other miscreants. Having eaten our bread and taken our shilling, they should be proud of drawing the fire on themselves to protect their masters (that's the rest of the citizenry), not whine the risks...

I tend to think, the whining is done by the pigs among them. The actual officers are fine with it. Right?

Re:What happened to "Bring it on"?!

[mi]

They are only concerned with their own safety, and not of the safety of the public.

Actually, I've noticed the exact opposite... Maybe, we are talking of different things — use your own account and explain, if you wish to continue the conversation.

Legally they are not bound to protect anyone.

I was not talking about legalities — ethics, mostly.

Oversight

[gatfirls]

Police want to be able to (without warrant or cause) track you, record you, search you, go through your cell phone, and whatever else the fancy at the moment but once there is the slightest attempt at any monitoring or oversight of the police they go apeshit about their rights and their safety.

It's so backwards it's almost a parody of the intent of the constitution and government accountability.

Utter nonsense.

[jpellino]

Waze reports are coming from plain old people out in the open observing police who are also out in the open. If anyone wants to go mess with a cop they hardly need Waze to do so.

Pot, meet Kettle

[geekmux]

"...Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk."

Oh, that's rich right there...a representative of the fucking NSA trying to label civilians as the group screwing with people's right to privacy.

I can't tell what stench hanging in the air is winning Charlie Sheen style; Irony or Bullshit.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle

[Mr Z]

National Sheriff's Association, not National Security Agency. I think that makes a difference.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle

[geekmux]

National Sheriff's Association, not National Security Agency. I think that makes a difference.

Not likely if you follow the budget money.

And in this case, it really wouldn't matter who made the statement. The irony of any law enforcement representative complaining about privacy is laughable given the laws that are twisted daily to rob citizens of it.

This is a BS concern.

[nsxdavid]

I use Waze virtually every day. It can only be used to spot for cops who are running speedtraps. It doesn't "stalk" them in anyway. It is not very accurate because it relies on someone to note their location, and cops move a lot (say, when they go after a speeder and setup somewhere else or move on with other duties). At best it can bed give you info like "There's been some activity by police looking for speeders around here recently."

If Google caves to this nonsense, I'm going to be very disappointed. And, for the record, never have any reason to use Waze again.

Re:This is a BS concern.

[MikeBabcock]

Waze also tends to give me much better directions than any other app, and much better ETAs as well.

So long as user reporting and map chat is there, there will always be a way to report officer locations; no matter what they do with the official feature.

Cops Gone Wrong

[JimSadler]

The only way that a traffic flow ap can cause danger to the cops is to stop ripping off the public for fines used to hire more cops. Any idiot can easily figure out a way to lure cops to a spot for bad purposes. And cops going out on a call are in far more danger as the person trying to lure them in has the advantage of preparation as well as choice of location. Cops are way to paranoid in my opinion and they do not have the most dangerous job in town either. Electrical workers and bridge building workers leap to mind.

Would this revenue be considered "pork"?

[mmell]

Just askin'.

Predatory policing

[TWX]

When I was in my late teens I moved out of my parents' house and lived in a city whose police felt predatory, somewhat during the day, but especially after dark. Simple traffic stops would result in at least two units showing up half the time, and at night they were constantly racing around on the main streets, but never could be found in the actual neighborhoods. I've never been into drugs, never driven drunk, and at the time my vehicle was only six years old and in fairly good repair, but it felt like the police were actively looking for an excuse to pull me over. Literally within five miles were three other cities, and I never felt anywhere near as uncomfortable in those cities than I did in the one I lived in at the time.

I now live one city over, and there's a major state university here, but even with all of the youth hijinks and the college dropout slums a few miles from the school it still doesn't feel as predatory. Only time I was pulled over in this city I deserved it, and the officer was professional and civil even if he was firm in issuing me a citation. When pulled over in the previous city it always felt like the officers were just looking for excuses to get tough.

Re:Predatory policing

[faedle]

You never learned the secret "Mormon handshake" that keeps you from getting pulled over.

Re:Predatory policing

[wasteoid]

Good luck getting a cop to shake your hand!

Re:Predatory policing

[Fwipp]

And from one moving vehicle to another, no less! These Mormons must be very talented individuals.

Re:Predatory policing

[dcw3]

It's simple, you just need a dog tied to the roof.

Hypothetically?

[drunk_punk]

"...hypothetically, you use your Waze.'" Yeah. Let's start legislating everything that's "Hypothetically" possible. That sounds reasonable. + You can't speed around in obviously painted POLICE or SHERIFF vehicles with light bars spewing out Red and blue, and then complain about people knowing where you're at.

Re:Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[CanadianMacFan]

Or if someone wanted to attack police officers they would probably go to a police station. Might be one or two hanging around there.

Who Watches The Watchmen? They Prefer "No One."

[ausoleil]

The Romans had a saying: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- "who watches the watchmen?"

Apparently, the sheriff's association would prefer "no one."

Meanwhile, they want unfettered access to track you, to search you at will, to apply force when they deem necessary - with no potential repercussions, and to have their word taken as literal truth in courts of law. In short, they want to answer to no one, and especially not to the public that pays their salaries and that they are sworn to serve.

To have their way, they threaten litigation or new statuatory laws. I suppose that they forget that the public has the right to free speech, and that the police are not the *secret* police in this country.

Bad people could do bad things with it!

[Chas]

Well fucking DUH.

Simply because some scumbag COULD be dangerous with the info doesn't mean the cops' desire to be unwatched watchers trumps legitimate use of the technology.

Re:Bad people could do bad things with it!

[MitchDev]

Some cops could (an DO) horrible things abusing their power. Guess they should all be fired huh?

Aw, you cops don't like it when we apply your "rules" to you, do you?

Re:If only it was true...

[guevera]

I wish this app would increase the death rate, but I don't think it will help. The death rate for pigs is lower than that for garbage men, and an order of magnitude below truly dangerous jobs like loggers and commercial fishermen. Every time a pig dies I feel a little safer, and I only wish something as simple as an app could help in that regard.

Re:F the police

[bobbied]

Yea, always a good policy to disrespect the people who are charged with protecting you and your stuff... There are a few officers who abuse their authority, but most really are out to protect and serve. May I suggest you think about being grateful? We really don't pay them all that much considering the risks they take everyday.

Objecting to increased safety

[penguinoid]

Person who puts the public at risk of death for their own profit complains when public wants to know where they are.

Speed traps are public safety hazards (a hazard on the roadway which causes people to suddenly and without warning hit the brakes) whose purpose is to generate money, not to increase public safety nor to reduce speeding. Just as an example, having inflatable police cars along the roadway is far more effective at reducing speeding, but does not generate revenue. This becomes even more obvious when you consider whether you're likelier to be pulled over on a nice dry summer day or a dangerous blizzard (at the same speed).

Re:Objecting to increased safety

[amxcoder]

Funny story to go along with your "inflatable police cars". The city of Foster City here in the bay area, used to park empty police cars around the town in order to get people to slow down. The police car would be a normal marked car, parked on the curb somewhere, with a "dummy" in the driver seat. Each day, the car would be parked in a different location through out the city. Was the weirdest thing I had seen, as still to this day, I have not seen another city do this. I suppose, looking back, something like this would actually get traffic to obey the speed limit, without it turning into a revenue thing. However, after working there for a year, I noticed a lot of the locals and regulars knew about it, and would ignore it, so business as usual.

Re:Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[Cramer]

...know where we'll be!

Not where they will be, but where their doughnut-eatin'-ass is currently parked. They're in cars that are most definitely mobile -- and likely running with the heat/ac on max. Just sitting there "cruiser spooning" isn't exactly doing their job.

If they don't like it they can be a mall cop

[schwit1]

Welcome to the 21st century where EVERYONE is tracked. If you don't like it ... too bad.

NO!

[MitchDev]

You want to spy on us in secret, welcome to the same fucking microscope assholes, hope you enjoy it!

Re:They can farrrrrk off

[MitchDev]

They need to be recorded on camera more than ordinary citizens do.

Why it is FUD especially for bank robbery scenario

[SuperKendall]

Was only marks STOPPED police cars, that are also by the side of the road with someone in them. You (the person using Waze) wouldn't mark a cop parked to eat lunch, or just driving around (how could you mark a car driving around? It's not like Waze is selling GPS tracking magnets... hmm...)

So for someone thinking of robbing a bank or anyone else, all you know is where the police cars are that are in speed traps. At any given moment there are a ton of police cara simply driving all about, that Waze has no indication.

Using Waze does not mean you can speed like crazy, just that you can keep up with traffic without worrying about being singled out for a stop because of the color of your car or yourself.

Waze is also REALLY useful to know when there's traffic ahead (people telling Waze where traffic is beats every other mapping solution I have used) and also hazards like giant potholes, or cars stuck in the road.

Donut shop cops are whining

[almondo]

Perhaps if they were being arbitrarily searched without warrants and having their cash seized without any justification they would feel more like the rest of us.

get out of the house more often

[s.petry]

Go to a peaceful protest somewhere, something anti-government. Go up to random cops and just try to strike up conversation. Sure, some cops are cool and some people appear to ask for trouble. At the same time, you will find a tremendous amount of unfriendly and unprofessional cops.

The best experiment I ever saw was of ex cops trying to ask for complaint forms at police stations. Yeah, now that's a good time to be had for sure.

Re:get out of the house more often

[s.petry]

"I" was not performing the experiment, it was ex police and no officer was named in their request. They simply asked the Desk officer "How would I file a complaint against an officer?". There were no departments that provided the information, and the majority almost immediately started to intimidate or threaten to arrest the person asking the question. A few departments did arrest the person asking.

Why would their lives be in danger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would making their location known place them in any danger?

Think about it!

Why are they afraid of people knowing where they are?

Are they afraid citizens might attack them? Kill them?

Gosh oh golly gee! Why in the world might they want to do that do you suppose?

</sarcasm>

Fuck 'em.

If they behaved more like good guys instead of the trigger-happy murderous shit-kicking-if-you-look-at-or-talk-to-them-sideways pricks that they are then there would be no reason for anyone to want to harm them.

They brought this situation on themselves.

Fuck 'em.

Twice (with a sharp stick).

They made their bed.

Now let them sleep in it.

Here is police opinion

[gatkinso]

From the cited article:

>> “There’s no expectation of privacy” for a vehicle driving on a public road or parked in a public place, said Lt. Bill Hedgpeth, a spokesman for the Mesquite Police Department in Texas.

http://washington.cbslocal.com...

Man that must be a real bitch for them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:F the police

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't want to "F" the police, don't assume we all want or need their protection.
I want my constitutional right to protect myself and my family, with their "help."

Simple Solution

[hduff]

Just make it illegal to use Waze to commit a crime.

There. Problem solved.

Re:Just tap "not there"

[gatkinso]

1 tap vs 150....

Re:Hey, I Actually Agree With the Sherriff

[gatkinso]

NSA in this case is the National Sherriffs Association

Stop whining and do your jobs Officers

[MrKaos]

That is all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Huh.

[EnsilZah]

I didn't realize things are getting so bad in the US that merely knowing the location of a traffic cop puts their life in danger.
I wouldn't even expect that to be the case in most third world countries.
That sounds like some Mad Max shit.
No wonder they're acquiring all that surplus military equipment.

"hypothetically, you use your Waze"

[hAckz0r]

And hypothetically they would have to be sitting still for like 20-30 minutes at a time for this to ever be a problem. Somene would have to be scanning the waze map and driving to that location. Happening upon that officer already happens, so nothing new unless the map is directing them there. Reality is that when a person sees an officer on waze, or perhaps the marked location where they were 20-30 minutes ago, they have a tenancy to slow down. Isn't that what they are after when they set up a speed trap? Yea, I know, they loose revenue, but then they can start paying attention to other things that are more important.

.
Here is a little scenario. An officer stops on the side of the road, and waits until that location gets marked on waze. Then he moves to another street and waits to get marked again, and again. Now the map looks like the police are all over the place. Properly played waze is a force multiplier. If waze were to simply change the marking algorithm so that marking an officer took one user event, but removing it took several, then the police would have the kind of visual presence on the map that would serve their better interest. People in those areas will slow down, and no you won't know which is current and which is merely recent.

Why marked cars then?

[duke_cheetah2003]

If police feel they are under threat by being identified, then why the heck are in they in clearly marked cars, wearing recognizable uniforms? I mean, if you're going to say knowing where you guys are is a problem then lets go all the way, get into normal cars and wear normal clothes.

Or you know, you could try not treating most of the population like lesser people than yourselves and show a little respect for people occasionally. I'm getting really tired of Law Enforcement's "we're better than the civilians" attitude.

Bacon?

[no1nose]

Can't Waze just change the icon to a crispy bacon strip to obfuscate things? Average driver will still know what's up and the fuzz none the wiser?

Interesting

[TuxWithoutPants]

Never used it before, now I know how to check which doughnut shops to avoid so I don't come back empty handed.

or you could go low tech

[ihtoit]

and just look for the cunts in dark blue uniforms with open-carry holsters. They'll be cops.

if the cops aren't doing anything wrong...

[xophos]

they have nothing to fear. Or wasn't that the theory they always try to feed us?

Fear!

[RubberDogBone]

Let me get this straight.

Cops have guns, shotguns, assault rifles, armored tanks, armed robots, tasers, pepper sprays, billy clubs, body armor, police shocks, police engines, police cars, police radios, helicopters, and the power of law behind them.

But they are afraid of an app.

You need an app for that?

[LMariachi]

If you're out to randomly murder cops, do you dick around with some driving directions app, or do you just look for the nearest distinctively liveried car with red and blue lights on the roof and the word POLICE all over it?

harry potter marauders map

[pablo_max]

Wow, that app must be exactly like Harry Potter's marauders map! Cops automatically appear on the map, no matter what. All cops too. Not just the ones reported by people in speed traps.
I hope the terrorist don't get a hold of this!

simple..

[SuperDre]

Add a function to track the google employee's and see how fast the feature will be removed.. ofcourse it's ridiculous to add police positions to such a tool.. Developers really should start thinking before adding stuff like that, you think developers would be smarter than that........

That's why I use Waze

[bsdpanix]

Waze is an annoying app and only use it for that feature. Not better than Navigator or G maps, except for avoiding the revenue generating radar traps.

To take the opposite approach from most...

[Lord Bitman]

I agree that this is free speech, and that police should not only be okay with people reporting on their location, but should be *required* to report their location publicly, constantly.

But that's not what this post is about. Others are saying "maybe if police didn't abuse their power, people wouldn't want to circumvent police and speed traps"

To take the opposite approach: maybe if speed limits were not only sane, but actually *enforced*, people wouldn't care so much about speed traps.

Speeds traps being a thing is really a sign that something is fundamentally wrong. Speeding should not be a thing which everyone does, unless there's a speed trap. Speeding should be a thing which, when it happens, everyone on the road reports the speeder, because they are creating a dangerous situation (just as you might call the police to report a chemical truck on fire).

If we live in a world where a law exists that *only police care about*, that's a problem.

Re:Our revenue stream your personal freedoms

[sabbede]

When I see cops along the interstate, they're pulling over people traveling in dangerous excess of the speed limit. Which usually means 15+ mph over the limit.

I know there's a thin line between traffic control and BS speed traps for corrupt municipalities, but without the threat of getting caught, speed limits are pointless.

License plates

[DarkOx]

I think we should drop license plate requirements. I mean seriously driving around with a big personal identifier on my vehicle puts the lives of me and my family at risk. It makes it trivial for stalkers to track me. They can tell what place of business I am at just by observing my car is in the lot.

Some information is public. It just is the cops are all to happy to argue you have not fourth amendment protection against them setting up cameras all over town with OCR to recognize plates and compiling a big database that essentially knows where you are at all times. That's no problem I mean anyone can see your vehicle out in public view right and anyone could compile such information? sure..

As soon as the public does something remotely similar, but decidedly less intrusive in that it does not track specific cops. OMG its a problem won't somebody please think of these brave officers we are putting at risk!

Fuck that! If I have to be watched all the time so do they!

They made the same claims

[franblets]

When the CB radio craze was on. There are a hundred technologies that will cause the same problems for police. Move on.

BEN EVERYTHING

[rbgnr111]

in the spirit of banning wazeas the new "police stalker" app, I also call for banning cars, I think they are "motorized murder machines" allowing criminals to run over and kill groups of people at will.

Waze data is so old it tells you where cops WERE

[mekkab]

but not at all where they are. This is a non-issue that just makes the USNSA look like under-informed tools. But, by all means! Keep protesting this!

Patrol more, sit less

[Wokan]

I understand cops ideally need to be parked somewhere to monitor traffic, but rush hour makes up a limited part of their day. And even then they can alter their location periodically to foil both stalkers and people hoping to avoid the upcoming speed traps.

It's not like, "But my app said you were further up the road," is going to get anyone out of a ticket. And all the invalid police location entries will keep the Waze users slowed down more than it would have if the cop stayed put because there's now a larger area they might get busted in.

Aren't they missing the point?

[Archeron]

Seems to me, the reason we have marked police cars is that part of their crime prevention strategy is to maintain a high degree of visibility. Were this not the case, all cars would be unmarked. This app then simply expands that visibility so you can know that big brother's little brother is watching. I am assuming most unmarked cars will not show up in this app, so that tool is still available to law enforcement. Plus, as a criminal, are you really going to trust the cell-phone-wielding masses to catch them all?

Now you've gone and made me post...

[JohnnyDoesLinux]

I used Waze (recently uninstalled), and I can tell you that 1 out of 100 times a cop was actually where a cop was reported. I figured that some cop somewhere was flagging a cop where there was not one (like a smokescreen)... I spent more time pushing the "thumbs down" on those reports that were not valid any more. It got to the point I could not see the route because of all the icons on the screen (and I was not looking at the road like I should).

Google navigator does fine without the "glitter", and my friends do not need to know where I am going.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Paranoid since latest events

[emaname]

I support our local constabulary. Hell, I've generously donated to them on more than one occasion during my mid-life crisis. But I think this response is unnecessary.

My impression of the 'police stalker' is entirely the opposite. I think it's a 'police protector.'

When I'm traveling somewhere and see patrol car lights ahead, I slow down and move over, if possible, to give them more room. I'm sick and tired of hearing about self-involved, inattentive drivers who plow right into a policeman/sheriff during a traffic stop.

Give these officers a break. Slow down and, if possible, move over. Give them room to do their already scary dangerous job.

Perhaps another perspective on this is it might motivate the officers to be more attentive. Pay attention to your surroundings.

I also have to wonder if there isn't a way to manage the obviousness of their presence. There are places on the interstate where everybody adjusts speed and changes lanes because they are so familiar with a patrol car being there. I certainly don't need Waze there. So what are the options re new locations or unmarked vehicles?

Personally, I don't use it. I've nearly deleted it several times already and after this discussion, I'll consider dumping it again. I thought it would give me some useful info while our interstate gets a major 5-year overhaul. It just hasn't turned out to be useful. I've ref'd to it on several of our trips, but didn't see anything I didn't already know or expect.

Finally, if the US National Sheriffs' Association is so uncomfortable with this, then do some work internally so you prevent poorly adjusted individuals from becoming officers just because they can carry a weapon and intimidate people and assert some sort of manly image for themselves. Then your public image might improve and you won't feel as persecuted as you probably feel now.

I know they go through some evals, but (IMHO, IANAL, AFAIK) several of these terrible tragedies were on the officer for not following protocol. There is room for improvement and I certainly understand the demands put upon them by society. They are extreme. But, in the final analysis, you, the US National Sheriffs' Association, is responsible for how society in general responds to your actions.

Personally, I think if someone wants to target police officers, they'll always find a way. People like that are already motivated by hate towards authority figures.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Police should EMBRACE Waze

[Bitbeard]

Waze sells its driving data, which includes driver speed. Even if it's aggregated or anonymized, it would tell the police exactly where drivers are speeding (within 50 feet!) and at precisely what time of day.

"Deputy Fife, I just got the Waze history download. Set up speed radar at 10:03 AM at 980 Main Street, then at 11:19 move over to 833 Orchard Avenue". Force multiplication.

Can you say ignorant and ironic paranoia?

[Internet Esquire]

I have no doubt that police officers who object to the cop-reporting feature of Waze are sincere in their belief that traffic cops are being put in danger by people reporting the whereabouts of said traffic cops, but that doesn’t mean that such fears are in any way reasonable.

In sum, this is not about “risk management.” It’s about “fear management.” It’s not like Waze is publishing the home addresses of police officers. And if a *UNIFORMED* traffic officer who is on duty is afraid of a *DANGEROUS* criminal knowing where he or she is, then he or she shouldn’t be carrying a badge.

Deterrence is the most effective form of policing, which is the primary reason why so many police are put in clearly identifiable uniforms and in clearly marked vehicles. Other than being able to catch a traffic offender unaware, why would any uniformed police officer want to hide? If anything, Waze makes the job of policing easier, as it makes police more visible and (thus) more of a deterrent to bad behavior.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The police are a criminal class.

[ToddInSF]

Take a cold, hard look at some of the shit US National Sheriffs' Association does, and you'll have a difficult time sleeping at night.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"police stalker"?!

[Dashiva Dan]

Brown called the app a 'police stalker,' and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk

Am I missing something here?
Criminal types could use it to find police?

Really?
Because it's so hard to find police otherwise?
I can think of ways to locate police from simply reporting suspicious activity at a location to... oh, Im thinking of ways far faster than I'll be able to write them down, and won't bore anyone, however:
Crowdsourced information on an app (that anyone including the police themselves can feed with misinformation if they like) doesn't seem like my "go-to" resource if I'm some sociopathic cop killer.... (assuming to be a cop killer you'd be sociopathic, but the same applies to the non sociopathic wanna be cop killers if they're out there too)

Re:If only it was true...

[Dashiva Dan]

This could almost be modded informative, despite the malice in it, but I'd be interested in some references for the statistics.
Just really how many Police Officers die as compared to other professions (and probably need to sub-categorise the police, so we're just looking at beat-walkers and response units here, not including undercover or other higher risk categories, or the desk-bound low risk categories)
I mean I know there's more to it that simply the statistic: cops and garbage men are equal in my opinion, they both provide a service to the community, however Police do have a little more training and equipment to help them to stay alive, that goes hand in hand with the increased power and responsibility

... and that has nothing to do with Waze

[InvisiBill]

So characterizing this as a "stalking app" sounds like a huge overreach. Could individual officers not drop off the tracking radar when actually necessary? As when they are undercover or staking out a scene or person?

Mild understatement of the year right there. This is a traffic app where users can report a stationary police officer (speed trap, accident scene, etc.) to make other users aware of the police presence. I'm sure it does cause some speeders to slow down near speed traps when they would otherwise get caught. However, it also causes people to slow down around accidents and just generally be more aware of hazards around them while driving.

Waze has no ability to track individual officers, or do any sort of realtime tracking of police. The app does a decent job (being crowd-sourced, it's only as good as its input) of alerting drivers to police cars stopped on or near roadways, and that's it.

Re:If only it was true...

[guevera]

Federal government's Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains really good numbers on relative number of deaths in various occupations. You can find the latest numbers here: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi...

The FBI also releases a detailed report of pigs killed every year. You can find it listed as "Law Enforcment Officers Killed and Assaulted" as part of the annual Uniform Crime Reports program. It's on the FBI website.

And the malice comes from experience.

Police station

[ebvwfbw]

They missed the most obvious target. You can usually find police at a police station. No Waze required. Also, they are often found at Donut shops.