Slashdot Mirror
App To Hold Police Instantly Accountable In Stop and Search (thestack.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A collective of London-based youth clubs and organizations has released an app called Y-Stop to help encourage those involved in unfair police encounters to instantly record and report their experiences. The idea is to 'encourage police accountability' by making it easier for anyone to have a say about what they think may be unjustified or illegal police action. The app allows its user to immediately send audio and video footage of harassment for secure holding with the charities themselves, or with the police directly. It also enables easier communication with lawyers for assistance and advice.
At least people in Britain feel confident enough not to fear being harassed for pointing a camera to a police officer.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
I was thinking about how to set up quick recording to online storage for this exact purpose, as my girlfriend was having trouble with a crooked sheriff, but I never thought about doing it via app. Kinda wish I had thought of it myself, but so long as it exists, I'm happy.
Why would you do that unless your intention was to intimidate or antagonise the officer?
I guess when government fails so miserably and consistently at doing it's job, some companies are willing to help out.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Read the woman's blog about how she was stopped for "Walking While Black", then watch the police dash cam.
Why would excercising a legal right be intimidating or antagonising to an officer?
I think our anonymous friend was being sarcastic.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
You bring up a very interesting point.
What will happen when the footage and audio captured repeatedly shows that the police were in the right, that they acted reasonably, and that it was in fact the other party/parties who were in the wrong?
Will the non-police parties actually admit that they were wrong? Or will they continue to live in a constant state of denial, even when all of the evidence shows that they were the ones in the wrong?
The Michael Brown incident is a perfect example of this. We have some clear video footage of him mercilessly robbing a store and abusing the cashier just minutes before his encounter with police. Just after this criminal incident, he was disrupting traffic by walking down the middle of the street. Then when confronted by the police, all of the evidence from the grand jury investigation showed that he had repeatedly attacked the police officer physically, including trying to take the officer's gun.
The officer did the only reasonable thing given the circumstances, and defended himself against this violent attacker using force, which ended up resulting in Brown's death. Yet despite all of the evidence available showing the police officer being completely in the right, and the violent thug completely in the wrong, it was still the officer who was mislabeled as having done wrong in this case. Thankfully, the justice system worked properly and brought the truth to light: the officer acted completely in self-defense, and did nothing wrong.
Yet despite all of the clear and indisputable evidence showing how the events unfolded and who was responsible (Brown), Brown's supporters have continued to deny the truth and reality of the situation.
I suspect we would see the same happen when it comes to footage and other evidence in general. The perpetrators in these cases are so convinced that they're "right", even when they're completely wrong, that they just can't accept it when the evidence shows that the police were actually in the right.
Why would you do that unless your intention was to intimidate or antagonise the officer?
I'll remember you said that when it comes time to pay those extra taxes for all those intimidating body cameras soon to be worn by every uniformed officer around the world.
After all, taxes do antagonize the masses rather well.
And this app will be banned in the name of terrorism in "5...4...3......."
Feel free to elaborate how monitoring of their activities somehow prevents law enforcement from preventing "terrorism".
They are free to continue to stop and search. Going forward, they'll simply find they need a legal reason.
Because the first thing you want to do when a cop starts illegally frisking you is quickly shove a hand in one of your pockets to get your phone...
Simple solution: Strap them into a movie theater seat with their eyes forced open and make them watch gory movies while giving them a drug that makes them nauseous. The worst thing that can happen is that maybe they'll develop an extreme aversion to Beethoven.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Governments have a few options.
A solution to block local towers, wifi around any event instantly. A caller can dial to the emergency services in that area but any data connection will be blocked.
The device can then be requested in the traditional way, a password demanded and local storage "accessed" during an interview.
That ability to live stream and save could fall under some login access request?
Unlock the phone, unlock the password protected app site with the only remote site copy of the file too. That would remove the risk of one person getting away with live streaming file once been questioned. The saved file and account could then be kept away from the user.
If the file is copied from a remote site in near realtime to another few sites that might keep the live streaming option open.
Offsite data storage, live streaming always runs the risk of a password and access request once discovered.
Some streaming apps try to run in the background, take a silent snapshot, once activated but if a password is given..
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or with spending millions of $ acting as U.S. lapdogs.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
There are tons of laws and regulations about recording. Wire tapping laws are quite complex and arcane. You could argue this is "wireless taping" so wire-tap laws don't apply. But many police departments claim recording the police violates the law.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What you really need is an app that will geolocate and display your rights in whatever jurisdiction you're in. State by state or even international (languages become a problem here) it tells you what the cops can and can't do to you. It includes a script that says you won't be talking and asks the cop a pointed question. You could even make this run as an mp3, so you wouldn't have to talk at all.
There used to be ads on cable TV for drunk drivers that showed some guy getting pulled over. When the cop came to his window he put a cassette tape into his tape player. A studio announcer's voice came on and said that the driver will not be talking, and rattled off a string of legal arguments in the driver's favor. The driver sat back looking pretty soused and pleased. Now with smartphones you can have that anywhere, and tailored to the jurisdiction. I hope someone chimes in with "dude, they already made that 3 years ago" so I can go download it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
= "black youths" being stopped and searched by the police, because blacks are more likely to be carrying weapons, and commit crimes, than other racial groups...
Why aren't the police stopping and searching Japanese tourists, if they're 'racists'?
Because of course there were never gangs of youths in the 60s or 70s. Oh, no, wait, Mods and Rockers - those times were *famous* for it.
You post just screams "conform, it doesn't matter what you do it's what we think you might do". Face it, you're old and have determined the youth of today are somehow inferior, like every ageing generation ever.
Feel free to elaborate how monitoring of their activities somehow prevents law enforcement from preventing "terrorism".
They are free to continue to stop and search. Going forward, they'll simply find they need a legal reason.
I think this app is more going to be used to antagonize cops. That said : 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."
If you say dumb, callous shit in public forum don't be surprised if people think you're a grade-A twat.
British pigs are much more decent and better educated than American ones.
Great idea.
The American edition of the app includes a bullet proof vest
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
In the US, your State's ACLU probably has an App.
The "CA Justice" app is great. Set it to record, and if anyone tries to operate your smartphone, it will immediately upload the recording to an ACLU server, along with date-time-GPS stamp, and later any info you want to add.
Other Apps:
Claiming that because some group may have some percentage of bad actors does not justify the criminal behavior in any way by police officers. In Miami Beach, the PD has a documented history of attacking anyone documenting crimes by police officers and destroying evidence. Bad officers are bad officers are bad officers and should in all case lose their certification and jobs. Any officer that breaks the law is violating their oaths and obligations to society.
-a.e.mossberg
...get people killed? Why do software people think there's an app for ever problem? People are going to get shot reaching for their phone ('he was going for a gun...').
Peace, or Not?
I think this app is more going to be used to antagonize cops.
Well, if they haven't done anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
Seems to have been a popular statement applied toward civilians for some time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And those gangs regularly got their asses handed to them by the Bobbies.
So you need to keep your "hood" clean and have Doughnuts and Coffee ready
(oh and sort out how to hand over the real troublemakers when you need to "Feed Dah Pigs")
I am a white male with one of the worst cowlicks you've ever seen. Imagine if an anime character stuck a fork in a light socket; that would be me if I ever grew my hair out more than this sad excuse for a crewcut I've worn since I was like 15. If it were up to me I would simply shave it all off and be done with the whole mess but I don't for the same logic that the GP is extolling here. I don't shave my head and instead I spend an inane amount of time in the morning screwing around with gels and hair products that I can't stand the feel of on my skin. I don't wear my steel toe DeWalts everywhere I go, despite them being possibly the most comfortable footwear I have ever owned, and I don't blast the music that I love even though that is exactly how it was designed to be listened to. I don't do these things for the simple reason that I do not want to be associated with a certain group and the activities they promote. Because I know for a fact that the same hypocritical white knight assholes who are promoting their screwed up version of "tolerance" and "social justice" here would judge me based on that look in a heartbeat. So let's all stop pretending that what GP is talking about is any different from how the world really works.
Not the same AC, but given the level of adoration I personally witness some people giving to cops, I would not be surprised if they were being dead serious.
Feel free to admit whether you either missed his point or are actually naive enough to believe that the government never uses Terrorism as an excuse to stop things that that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism.
Should I get off your lawn now, or would you like to shout at me first?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I was about to write your post is a load of complete bollocks, but I realised you're being sarcastic.
Well done.
Hmmm, classic Poe's Law problem. Personally, I'd say it was serious, certainly all the drongos agreeing with it are, but then again that would apply to a troll too. Almost impossible to tell.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Claiming that because some group may have some percentage of bad actors does not justify the criminal behavior in any way by police officers. In Miami Beach, the PD has a documented history of attacking anyone documenting crimes by police officers and destroying evidence.
The lesson here? If you're going to record the abused of Miami cops, it's worthwhile to invest in a telephoto lens.
Why would excercising a legal right be intimidating or antagonising to an officer?
I don't know, but it sure seems to be viewed that way by a lot of police officers. And I do mean a lot.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
It's perfectly sensible reasoning.
It call comes down to not voluntarily putting yourself into a dangerous position.
If you dress like convicted criminals typically do, and then hang around in known high-crime areas, be prepared for the police to target you.
If you dress like a prostitute, and then hang around in seedy bars, be prepared for molesters to target you.
If you dress yourself in raw steaks, and then hang around in the lion's den at the zoo, be prepared for a lion to maul you.
So if you don't want to become a victim, don't go out of your way to do stupid shit that will greatly increase your likelihood of becoming a victim!
There are few things petty, small-minded people resent more than knowing you are right when they dislike your message. Nowhere is this more obvious than when you explain to a victim how they can take control over their situation so they don't have to be victims anymore (or can at least improve their chances). They will immediately frame the discussion not in terms of fact, but in terms of blame, with a childish concern for how to most favorably allocate it.
Victimhood was once viewed as an undesirable state in which any sort of improvement or advice is welcome. Now it's like a dysfunctional sainthood, as resistant to truth as any other form of idolatry.
I'll give another example of the same mentality. A long time ago, I was overweight. I didn't like it. I knew it would continue to get worse if I didn't change. So I did something about it. An acquaintance noticed that I became slim and fit, and, being overweight themselves, wanted to know how I did it. What they really wanted was a magic pill or shortcut. When I told this person that I started seriously exercising, learned to like vegetables, stopped eating junk food and lost my taste for sweets, they immediately became hostile. They resented the implication that their own actions contributed to their situation, even though changing those same actions is what worked so well for me.
This person doesn't have the emotional maturity to cope with the reality in front of them and do what it takes to change it. This person has continued to gain weight. I hope they enjoy their dysfunctional sainthood. I hope it comforts them when they achieve diabetes, heart disease, painful joints, various cancers, reduced quality of life, or any one of the other many health problems obesity causes or worsens.
This is the mentality you're dealing with. It's resistant to reality. It resents even the facts and logic it asks for because they aren't the cheap effortless quick-fixes it hoped they would be. I don't believe it's capable of improving. It must run its course until it reaches its inevitable failure. I think nothing less than natural selection will rid us of it. The best thing you can do for yourself is to recognize and avoid such people.
Having been privy to what just exactly what goes on in cases on a number of ocassions I have to ask- why is any little nook or cranny of the jurisprudence apparatus not videoed and recorded 24/7? I am talking interviews of witnesses, DAs talking amongst themselves, investigator's notes, prisoners, wardens in fact every utterance of everyone involved in every aspect of every case should be memorialized. Futhermore, talking about cases while OFF the system should be forbidden and punished.
If we're going to have universal and omnipresent surveillance of citizens, and that IS what the NSA et. al. sis bucking for, then the same has to be true of the people who operate society's levers of ultimate power. Failing this, we're barrelling towards an un-usurpable fascism.
What people say and do during their jobs is just what they say and do. Sure, it would be shocking, but we can learn a lot from it and end up in a better society because of it. Moreover, it would restore trust between those in government at any one time and those not in government.
Everything the NSA offcials do or say should be recorded. That's bad for individuals perhaps but good for society since 1) it would inhibit criminality and 2) we can dissect what we're doing wrong when things do go wrong.
Thent he NSA systems would have some use We could troll through every decision making process and see how ti got made. Who bullied who. Who threatened who. Who manipularted who and how. Who fired who and why.
These are the ultimate keys to the kingdom, the REAL most closely guarded secrets people and organizations have. You can bet they'll never give them up willingly, but, uh, looks like maybe societal and technological momentum is on our side for once. Oh, the irony.
The sad part is that cops used to be viewed as heroes that would put their lives on the line to save innocent people. Now their procedures require them to put their own lives above all others, including use of lethal force on the slight chance their lives are in danger (such as the shooting of the kid with the toy gun).
Meanwhile they stand around outside waiting for backup while listening to people get gunned down (columbine).
Soliders are heroes. They put themselves in danger. Firemen are heroes. They risk and sacrifice their lives for the just a chance of saving a life. I have no doubt some cops are heroic or at least would be if procedures allowed.
Guns are for pussies.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
Feel free to elaborate how monitoring of their activities somehow prevents law enforcement from preventing "terrorism".
They are free to continue to stop and search. Going forward, they'll simply find they need a legal reason.
I think this app is more going to be used to antagonize cops.
And as I stare back into the lens mounted in THEIR uniform, tell me how I'm not supposed to feel the same.
That said : 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."
Ah, so a little icon on an electronic map is putting their lives at risk by identifying where they are.
Of course the big metal-wrapped bumpers, the word POLICE emblazoned across the back, a uniformed person inside wearing a gun, and an obscene amount of bright flashing lights mounted all over the outside of the car are all examples of urban camouflage intended to conceal their location, right?
Feel free to admit whether you either missed his point or are actually naive enough to believe that the government never uses Terrorism as an excuse to stop things that that have little, if anything, to do with terrorism.
I got your point, but I fear you've missed mine.
What I was really trying to say here is they don't even have a bullshit excuse to ban this app, even when it's addressing a bullshit justification such as "terrorism".
In your example above, technology came about that actually prevented law enforcement from using their "anti-terrorist" tool.
This app merely provides civilians with the ability to monitor and record the activity. That does NOTHING to prevent or block the activity in itself, it merely tries to ensure the activity is LAWFUL, that's all, so it's rather unlike your example.
And quite frankly, this IS the way we should be approaching this issue to try and make it go away. As I said, they can't even formulate a bullshit excuse to ban this app. It does not interfere (unless justified). It only monitors and records, or as the summary suggests, provides instant accountability.
Weve paid billions in settlements. A few cameras to rein that in will be savings.
A government program is going to save money? When did they start serving ice cream in hell? I must have missed that memo.
Be careful what you wish for.
Of course the big metal-wrapped bumpers, the word POLICE emblazoned across the back, a uniformed person inside wearing a gun, and an obscene amount of bright flashing lights mounted all over the outside of the car are all examples of urban camouflage intended to conceal their location, right?
... that you won't see until after they've used radar to measure your speed, at which point it's too late to slow down if you were speeding.
The cops are just annoyed that such apps may make their speed traps less effective. Understand that speeding is a huge source of revenue for local and state governments, so the politicians at that level put a lot of pressure on the cops to keep those tickets flowing. It's not unreasonable to say that many local/state budgets would break without this revenue. Ironically, speed in and of itself is almost never a cause of accidents. Accidents are caused by things like failing to yield, drunk driving, and following too closely, but then I digress.
The bullshit about "putting officers' lives in danger" is just propaganda. It's designed to portray the police and anything they desire as the Good Guys (TM), and anyone obstructing their revenue-generation activities as the Bad Guys (TM). It's standard PR practice. The reality is, no one wants to fuck with the cops. They're the very last choice of target for psychos looking to do violence. In fact, posing a threat to them is a recognized suicide method, as an AC pointed out earlier. What's not so well known is that police work is not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs. So yes, this excuse of theirs is just more authoritarian bullshit. No one acquainted with the facts would believe it.
When it comes to pigs, you should be pointing a gun, not a camera!
Real pigs would tear you limb from limb, you idiot. There's a reason you call it a "Wild boar" when you're not trying to make it sound nice and domesticated. They have skins so thick that a bullet from a rifle might make them angry and you don't want to run across them.
As to police officers... no. Just no. In most countries in the world that will get you shot. Occasionally it will get you tortured. There's no place where it's a good idea.
Guns are for pussies.
... and people who want to be able to protect themselves against an armed assailant. Home invasion is the classic scenario here. Your bravery and bare hands won't do much good against bullets.
But I agree that instigating violence with a firearm is a cowardly act. In that sense, you (and the band 311) are right that guns are for pussies.
Because the cops don't make the laws, or the lawmakers enact them without knowing what it takes to enforce them at the street level, as a complete body of law?
I don't share your religion. Government actions can save money, but apparently not under Republican Presidents.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
It seems like a fairly rational response.
There are a lot of jobs that workers SHOULD insist that they be recorded, for their own safety. Teachers being falsely accused of hitting students, daycare workers and hospital / convalescent worker falsely accused fo being abusive or stealing stuff (old people do this all the time in homes, then are surprised when it turns out THEY were the ones that hid the item in the first place). Cops to avoid false accusations of brutality or rape. Cashiers as a deterrent to robbers. Pastors and priests for $YOU_KNOW_WHAT. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists so that there is no question that the patient was given the correct instructions. Delivery drivers when someone goes through a red light and rams them.
What's really needed is a google glass that doesn't make you look or act like a dick.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If the kids are to blame, at least remember to share some of that blame with the parents. I've seen too many parents who go into foul-mouthed screaming rages, strings of put-downs, whatever ... The kid's been trying to tell you for half an hour that they've got to go to the bathroom, don't get all mad because they finally couldn't hold it any more.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
In a yearlong investigation of sexual misconduct by U.S. law enforcement, The Associated Press uncovered about 1,000 officers who lost their badges in a six-year period for rape, sodomy and other sexual assault; sex crimes that included possession of child pornography;
While I will admit that in 98% of the cases the right light cameras are probably working just fine, my issue is that when there is a problem with the camera there is little to no recourse, due to both the distance of time and the lack of a human to argue with if there was some extenuating factor. (I have seen lights with VERY short yellows; somewhere around 1 second, but less than 2 seconds.) There have been numerous news articles about shenanigans either at the private company running the cameras, or at the municipalities, doing such things as short-yellows to increase revenues.
Even worse, in my mind, are the "blocking the box" cameras. More than once I have been pausing before crossing the intersection, to insure that I will not get caught blocking the box by the change in the light, and then right when there is space on the other side and I am part way across the intersection someone turning right-on-red cuts me off, filling the space and leaving me in "the box." Since all the cameras do is take a still photo (you can see the flash), this would not be evident, and it would look like I was in the wrong, when there was really nothing which I could have done to prevent it. Fortunately, none of those times have been at camera intersections.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?
It seems like a fairly rational response.
wow chicken and egg much?
these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members
Or maybe society has made it very clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members so they stop trying. Considering that's the message of hip hop maybe we outta listen to what they're saying.
Just another second banana
We seem to be roughly in agreement, perhaps you didn't parse my writing quite correctly?!?
Now their procedures require them to put their own lives above all others, including use of lethal force on the slight chance their lives are in danger (such as the shooting of the kid with the toy gun).
....
Soliders are heroes. They put themselves in danger.
Except that soldiers use lethal force to protect themselves far more often than the police do. Soldiers in Iraq shot unhappy civilians because they had no way of knowing they weren't suicide bombers... of course they didn't, but that's always the way. Look at the paranoia in Vietnam, and the impunity that soldiers and officers had to shoot any Vietnamese person on the grounds that they might possibly be Viet Minh soldiers (note, Viet "Cong" was an invented label to make them seem scarier and justify shooting them).
When NATO intervened in the Kosovo crisis, we sat back and threw stones over the wall (and hit many wrong targets) because while we had to do something, "our boys'" lives were too valuable to risk on ground assault. Thousands and thousands of civilians die at the hands of our troops because our military values the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians (see also the difference in sentence between "unjustified killing" by a soldier and "murder" by a civilian).
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Soldiers are not heroes. If you don't believe me you can ask a few people who fought in the war on "terror" or Vietnam vets. None of the people I know will even tell anyone what they did there.