Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

32 of 468 comments (clear)

  1. Simple solution by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop setting up cash-cow speed traps. :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Simple solution by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Simple solution by Gription · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Simple solution by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Criminal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Newsflash: You're in public too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Newsflash: You're in public too by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Newsflash: You're in public too by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Our revenue stream your personal freedoms by AuralityKev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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?

  5. Wait a minute... by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. FUD by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:No fuck off by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by CauseBy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

    6. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by w_dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by JamieMcGuigan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    11. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re: Who eats doughnuts with the doughnut men? by hackwrench · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  9. Re:No fuck off by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  10. Oversight by gatfirls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. This is a BS concern. by nsxdavid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    David Whatley
  12. Re:Lying Headlines by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  13. Would this revenue be considered "pork"? by mmell · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just askin'.