Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Entries On NYPD Violence Get Some Edits From Headquarters
First reported by Capital, and picked up by Reason, it seems that "Computers operating on the New York Police Department’s computer network at its 1 Police Plaza headquarters have been used to alter Wikipedia pages containing details of alleged police brutality."
Computer users identified by Capital as working on the NYPD headquarters' network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations, including entries for Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses.
Besides edits to entries about specific instances of misconduct, edits from the same NYPD IP blocks were discovered in Wikipedia entries about the city's stop-and-frisk program and about NYPD misconduct more generally.
Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.
Control of information is Paramount in maintaining a docile populace.
some of the stuff is clear cut abuse. on the other hand some of it is semantics. I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done. The summary leaves a lot of details out (prime click bait!!!)
But in the end, the cops should not be making edits to these things on wiki. im pretty sure the EULA states (or did in the past) that one cannot update articles on itself. meaning NYPD should not be making any of these edits
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That being said, if these are actually part of someone's job, they should really be making press releases or blog entries where relevant and letting the community update wikipedia; or they should be disclosing who they are when relevant. (E.g. trying to remove the Sean Bell shooting incident--plenty of stories become non-stories over time, but someone with an incentive to remove the story probably shouldn't be able to do so without disclosing their relationship to the subject matter.)
Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.
First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records". Secondly, Wikipedia is set up that way. People can make edits. Other people can edit the edits. It's bad form to try to bias an article with opinions or to state facts without citations, but it's not illegal. These changes were caught by editors and presumably corrected if they were in error or introduced bias. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This revelation might be embarrassing for the NYPD, but it is hardly criminal.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
You set up an open access, anyone can edit, system like Wikipedia, and you're surprised when people edit it when they might have a vested interest?
This is the very reason why Wikipedia is a poor source on some political or controversial issues. Usually it's better for some of the technical issues, but not always.
It's a powerful tool, but trying to make it something that it's not, a guaranteed to be unbiased source, is a bit unrealistic.
If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?
I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.
If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?
What happened to Aaron Schwartz was a tragedy, as it is any time someone takes their own life. But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass), and rewired a router (that's computer trespass) in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them). That's hardly "easily available". Was the justice department wrong to lay charges in that case? If they were wrong to do so, was it because what he did wasn't a crime or because he was a suicide risk due to mental health issues? If the latter, do we allow anyone with mental health problems to get away with any crimes because they would be a suicide risk if arrested and charged?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.
Can you cite these laws please? If there are laws as you describe, every President of the United States should be in prison. Also, we don't know for a fact that taxpayer resources were used.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The elimination of racist police tactics is already paying dividends. Shootings and murder are already up over 20%!
http://xkcd.com/552/
and the fact that Taisha Allen (one of the two people who recorded the choking death of Eric Garner) has been arrested and beaten by NYPD officers?
http://rt.com/usa/240261-nypd-...
It's public domain now, bitches! Edit THIS!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
"Cover up" and "media management" are US traditions.
"Justice" died a long time ago. About the same time the bar association came on the scene.
Expecting anything like "honesty" from a department that shoots or otherwise kills unarmed civilians is insane.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I've seen a lot of dicy things go down on wikipedia over the years.
They're generally okay with non-controversial information of a very general nature. But anything that gets political or very specific... and you can't trust them.
It isn't just that people will go in or hire people to go in and change things in their favor. The community itself is often biased or just lazy.
They'll do things like make a statement without attribution or proof and then if you say it is wrong they ask you for proof.
Or they'll say something is true and use as evidence a blog post or a tweet as if that's evidence of anything. And then if you say that is wrong... they'll say "where is your proof"... never mind that they were posting assertions without proof in the first place and the burden of proof was on them.
It is an on going thing on wikipedia.
I like the service a lot, it has a lot of really good information on it... it is just very vulnerable to assholes and lazy idiots.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Good chance the networking equipment behind those IP addresses was paid for by taxpayers, if not the computers themselves.
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass),
You mean he walked in. The door is always open. Hell, there were homeless people living in there at one point. Besides, this is a college campus we are talking about. MIT is an open campus.
and rewired a router (that's computer trespass)
That's an unfounded allegation, and "computer trespass" is not recognized in Massachusetts. Really, look it up.
in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them
The journal articles are freely available for downloading by anyone for any reason.
The tragedy is that his life ended before he got a fair trial as none of the allegations against him had any real merit
Sorry but it is illegal for government employees to participate in politics whilst on the taxpayer dime, during working hours. Whilst not at work, using you private equipment and connection, fine, have at it but when at work, electoral laws kick in and tax payer dollars can not be used for political purposes, well, at least they are not meant to be. These laws are being criminally flouted so often at every level in a corrupt marriage between government and news organisations, at the demand of their owners, the major multinational corporations, it all seems rather quaint to expect any of them to obey any laws at all any more with regard to elections.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen