Police Scotland Told To Pay Journalist $13,000 Over Illegal Intercepts (theguardian.com)

Reader Bruce66423 writes: A former police officer turned journalist whose privacy was criminally breached by Scotland's finest is due to receive 10,000 Pound ($13,000) for the damage their actions caused. Other victims didn't seek compensation. It is not clear whether criminal proceedings against the officers responsible for ignoring clear rules against their behaviour will follow.From the report: The investigatory powers tribunal ruled the force had breached the human rights of Gerard Gallacher, a former police officer turned freelance journalist, who had spent 18 months investigating a cold murder case in which a prime suspect had been released without charge. Gallacher said he suffered "invasion of privacy, familial strife, personal stress and strain and loss of long-standing friendships" after detectives accessed 32 days of his communications data, ignoring clear court rulings to protect journalists and their sources. Police Scotland had been braced for an adverse ruling after Sir Stanley Burnton, the communications interception commissioner, ruled last November that the force had been reckless in its repeated abuse of its powers.

Comments

Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?

Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[geekmux]

So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?

Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....

Care to direct me to the country in the world that operates any differently in this type of scenario?

This IS the inherent problem with trying to nail government officials to the wall when they fuck up; the taxpayer ends up being the one punished, which tends to raise the question as to whether or not you should be swinging a hammer in the first place, even when it's blatant.

Worst catch-22 ever.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[almitydave]

So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?

Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....

The article doesn't make it clear where the money will come from. If it comes from the Police budget without a commensurate increase, it isolates the public somewhat, although since the police provide a public service, theoretically a decrease in police budget could hurt the public. I agree it should be levied against the officers directly.

Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Against the officers only? It should come from them and all their superiors for fostering an environment where this could occur. Treat leadership as an accomplice and leadership won't tolerate cops more crooked then them.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the rest of the world. It's the same everywhere. Police break the law, they don't go to jail, and the public pays the fine.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative to tax funded services tend to be insurance funded services.
Functionally it is more or less the same. A bunch of people gang up and pay a smaller fee to compensate for a random expense that isn't easily predictable.
The difference is essentially that the tax version isn't optional and the insurance version have an insurance company that takes a percentage as profit.

This is equivalent to an insurance against government wrongdoing. You all pay a small fee so that the one who is hit by the governments bullshit is compensated for the damage.

Just like insurances against natural disasters it serves a purpose even if there is no action taken to prevent further occurrences.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the Scotland Police do something bad, and the penalty is paid by the Scottish taxpayers rather than the police officers who did the bad thing?

Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....

That's a "cost of business as usual" fine.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only make sense if it came out of the government personnel paychecks. Of course, as you get closer to being statistically more likely in your role to breach privacy rights, you would need more insurance. That might set up a good public interest to private interest trade off which is measured monetarily.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Wootery]

Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....

But there is. This is huge black mark on their careers, no?

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only make sense if it came out of the government personnel paychecks.

Previous AC here.
I don't follow. Can you clarify?

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[AmiMoJo]

It's worse than that. The cost of their legal representation, the time wasted by officers having to attend court... Taxpayers always have to fund defences for corrupt coppers, because they make sure that the police force itself takes on the case.

It's also pretty damning evidence of how the new Snooper's Charter powers will inevitably be abused.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[alexo]

The alternative is personal liability and criminal charges when it is proven that the cop(s) in question violated clear guidance.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

If they'd kept the name "Scotland Yard", they wouldn't hae ha ne trouble.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Coisiche]

Police Scotland never had the name "Scotland Yard", that is the name given to the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London, derived from the original location. They've since moved but "Scotland Yard" had become so synonymous with the police in London that the new HQ is officially "New Scotland Yard" even though nobody actually uses the "New".

Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

How about: day-to-day activities are funded by taxpayers but if you're found wilfully negligent; corrupt, etc. the perps pay out of their own pockets?

That seems like a happy compromise I could get behind.

Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[easyTree]

How about: day-to-day activities are funded by taxpayers but if you're found wilfully negligent; corrupt, etc. the perps pay out of their own pockets?
That seems like a happy compromise I could get behind.

Posted anonymously by fumble.

Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[easyTree]

Agreed. How do we make that happen?

Re: Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

It always rolls back around to the tax payers, because we are, at the end of the day, responsible.

Cop does something wrong because his superiors allowed it. His superior was appointed by another superior, which was likely appointed by a board or sheriff. In most of the US, at least, the board and sheriff are voted in by the population.

At the end if the line, it is always the peoples' fault for allowing police abuse. The population allowed it to happen, for whatever reason. Sometimes because lack of funding calls for colorful interpretation of the rules. Sometimes because the public calls for a more active police. And the list goes on.

You're always going to have the line folks overstepping, but those are ready to fund and let go. When it is systematic, you must look at yourself.

Re:Seems like a less than ideal outcome

[Anonymous Coward]

My post was a reference to

This IS the inherent problem with trying to nail government officials to the wall when they fuck up; the taxpayer ends up being the one punished, which tends to raise the question as to whether or not you should be swinging a hammer in the first place, even when it's blatant.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Scotland Yard

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing dirty liverpool?

Say YES to breastit!

Worst possible punishment: paid time off

[DatbeDank]

The cops in question will most likely be forced to take an "administrative leave" where they will continue to get full pay. £10k is a f*cking pittance for harassment and privacy breaching.

Re:Hillary corruption is even worse

[jellomizer]

Who is worse? The Corrupted or the Corrupter?

Trump it just trying to cut the middle man.

Lucky he's not Black

[PPH]

And dealing with American cops. Or they might misunderstand that '10,000 pounds' payback.

Re:Lucky he's not Black

[Anonymous Coward]

And dealing with American cops. Or they might misunderstand that '10,000 pounds' payback.

I know it makes you feel good to say that, like you're tirelessly fighting for justice or something. Truth is, black males are 7% of the US population and commit just over 50% of the murders. When their culture of violent crime changes, their treatment by police will change with it. Until that time, police would be astonishingly stupid not to concentrate their efforts where the most serious crimes are.

Compensation v Punishment

[Bruce66423]

The £10,000 is compensation from the state to the victim for the behaviour of the police. This is always coming from the taxpayer. The more problematic situation is when police forces get fined in the criminal courts for doing something illegal - it does happen in England - and taxpayers pay the money to government. The only virtue of this is that it is embarrassing to the force.

On a good day the reprobates who actually committed the offences whilst they were police officers get sacked from the force and deprived of their pension. That DOES translate into the taxpayer getting a nice bonus; police pensions are EXPENSIVE. It's my hope that this might happen here.

Re:Compensation v Punishment

[sjames]

Not really. The money comes from the public into the general budget (through taxation) then to the police, then back to the general budget (through the fine).

One would hope there are personal consequences of some sort for whoever made the decision, but not for the people who had little choice but to obey.

Hold rights violators PERSONALLY responsible!

[Locke2005]

So, are the people that broke the law paying the 10,000 pounds, or is their department? I wish they would have civil penalties for violating rights here in the US as well, our way of dealing with it is to just throw out all evidence obtained via unlawful searches... which only rewards criminals, and does nothing for innocent people whose rights were violated!

Re:Hillary corruption is even worse

[Locke2005]

Ah yes, the witch hunt defense: "If I'm not a witch, then you're unfairly persecuting me. But if I am actually a witch, aren't you worried about me cursing you and your family FOREVER?!?" If Hillary really does have anyone that threatens to expose her killed... why aren't you more worried about getting killed?

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the witch hunt defense: "If I'm not a witch, then you're unfairly persecuting me. But if I am actually a witch, aren't you worried about me cursing you and your family FOREVER?!?" If Hillary really does have anyone that threatens to expose her killed... why aren't you more worried about getting killed?

Asshole, after that much investigation there are really only 3 possibilities, the investigators are completely incompetent, she's the most brilliant criminal mastermind ever, or she didn't do it. Which is it?

Re: Nope

[easyTree]

Option four) The investigators have been paid to find nothing and the whole thing is for show.

Etc...

Re:Nope

[Locke2005]

Agreed, there is nothing there. My point is, all these rethuglicans spouting off about her being a criminal mastermind make themselves look like liars by their own actions, i.e. if the Clintons really were organized crime bosses, wouldn't they be putting themselves in danger by spouting off about it? As my friend Vido says, "There is no Mafia... and we'll kill anyone who says there is!"

Re: Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Option four) The investigators have been paid to find nothing and the whole thing is for show.

Etc...

That falls under option of her being the most brilliant criminal mastermind ever, because that's also illegal and she hasn't gotten caught doing that either.

Maybe they should hold investigations into their own investigators to determine whether or not they were paid off by the Clintons.

Editor Slashdot Wrote Grammatically Strange Title

[nuckfuts]

FTFY

Re:Editor Slashdot Wrote Grammatically Strange Tit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually.

"Police Scotland" is the name of the police force in question.

Can't really put a price on friendships...

[Anonymous Coward]

but 10,000 GBP is ridiculous. Cheap bastards.

Uhh...

[easyTree]

It must be nice to be shielded from consequences. They're told to pay but the taxpayer pays. Awesome.

"Oooh, make 'us' pay some more. Ouch" the commissioner commented after the heating.

Absolute power...

[Dog-Cow]

When those in power abuse their power in a criminal way, they should be punished and made examples of. In this case, the officers should have their faces ripped off and nailed to the wall of the station as a warning to the rest of the force.