Slashdot Mirror
NYPD To Google: Stop Revealing the Location of Police Checkpoints (nypost.com)
schwit1 shares a report from the New York Post: The NYPD is calling on Google to yank a feature from its Waze traffic app that tips off drivers to police checkpoints -- warning it could be considered "criminal conduct," according to a report on Wednesday. The department sent a cease-and-desist letter over the weekend demanding Google disable the crowd-sourced app's function that allows motorists to pinpoint police whereabouts, StreetsBlog reported. "Individuals who post the locations of DWI checkpoints may be engaging in criminal conduct since such actions could be intentional attempts to prevent and/or impair the administration of the DWI laws and other relevant criminal and traffic laws," wrote Acting Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters Ann Prunty in the letter, according to the website. My $0.02 is that the NYPD loses on first amendment grounds.
Papers, please?
SOTU to NYPD: STFU
About 5-10 years ago, there was a Supreme Court opinion that said people flashing their headlights to indicate a police presence was a 1st amendment right.
When did policing in the United States become gestapo-like? I mean, it's always been that way for certain minority groups. I get that. But now it's just across the board, from local cops to staties to border patrol and that deepest of the deep state, ICE (who is actually not under the jurisdiction of any US court, if you can believe that).
It's gotten to the point that anyone who wears a badge is the enemy. Cops in neo-Nazi gangs. Well, maybe not park rangers, but everyone else? Fuck them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The article talks both of DWI and of other speed and safety traps.
The goal for speed enforcement is (or should be) for drivers to slow traffic down to the speed limit and drive safely. When the alerts show up, that is exactly what drivers do near the checkpoint. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, at least in that zone.
What they should be asking for is inserting extra markers when dangerous conditions are forming, so those app users can reduce traffic speeds before a crash occurs.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
My 0.02$ is if you're in a motorized vehicle, obey the damn traffic laws at all times. Who cares where the police is?
Should the police work to make the roads safer by letting people know "In this area we will be checking you out", making cars drive safer. OR Just arrest people in volume.
I love cookies
Park rangers, too. Was talking to a retired FAA engineer at dinner about his hijinks with park rangers trampling of rights for inholders. Luckily he was smart enough to stay out of trouble.
From people who are breaking the law by driving over the limit and getting pissy at check points.
check points are not the issue, you driving while intoxicated is!
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
This app also assists Lawful and Non-Impaired drivers in avoiding the inconvenience or uncomfortable situation of happening upon an unexpected checkpoint and possibly becoming subject to some search or test that they wish to avoid.
In other words.... this functionality has lawful and beneficial uses, contrary to what their letter suggests.
Furthermore, the submission, sharing, and dissemination of this information about government activity is speech of a political nature among the types of speech most strongly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US constitution, which the NYC PD is not above.
Go read the first amendment, and then go fuck yourselves. We have every right to tell each other about unwarranted surveillance.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ban folks from pointing out cops and you'll just see a mysterious rise in people marking construction in the same ares those checkpoints are in.
There is.
TWO FRIENDS ARE DRIVING HOME after a night on the town. A few miles from their freeway exit, they see a sign that reads “Drug Checkpoint 1 Mile Ahead.” There is nothing to worry about—neither party is carrying contraband and the driver is sober. But their exit is only a few miles away and the weary travelers want to avoid the hassle of a stop. The driver takes the first exit he sees after the sign; much to his surprise, he encounters a drug checkpoint located at the bottom of the off-ramp. The bewildered driver turns to his companion and asks; “Can they do that?” Regardless of whether law enforcement can use such tactics, they have.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
RTFA. This is about DWI checkpoints. Speed traps are one thing, but fuck you if you think driving drunk is some sort of right.
Law enforcement want tools that share data and discover people doing all manner of things in public. People want tools that share data and discover law enforcement doing all manner of things in public.
Do you think one can be enabled, and the other is not?
Yeah let's protect other drunks because that's safe. As a motorist, I want under the influence people stopped before they hurt others or themselves. If you have a alcohol problem get some help.
DUI check points need to go back to the Supreme Court. Decades ago they were deemed a necessary limitation to our right to not be detained by the government for absolutely no reason, in the name of public safety (getting drunks off the roads). In the last couple of decades though multiple studies have shown that saturation policing is both cheaper and more effective at stopping drunks rendering that ruling inaccurate
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There shouldn't be any checkpoints. Keep the app up and make more
Back when speed limits was very low and there was no alternative to drinking and driving majority of the public hated the speed traps and DWI check points. And would be in a mood to support the dodgers because they might need to dodge it themselves at some point.
But now with easy Uber clones and public info campaign, most people avoid drinking and driving. Speed limits have gone up to 70. A very large majority of the the public no longer feel these checkpoints are targeting them, but instead they are targeting the "others", "them speed maniacs, and them drunken drivers". Public support is likely to be with NYPD, whether they win in courts or not. Google has a "win the court lose the people" dilemma in its hand.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Anyway red light cameras with fines are going away. People vote out politicians who support red light cameras with fine.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A very large majority of the the WHITE public no longer feel these checkpoints are targeting them
Fixed that for you.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
we will communicate with each other about things happening in the public space. fuck you and your attacks on the first amendment!
you also don't realize until you go to court, most times those people have no money and will never pay you.
And who define those speed limits? Will give an example....Here we have a tolerance of 20km in some situations, in which you either are ignored, or just get out of it with a verbal warning and a (very small) fine.
Bureaucratic solution? Downgrade all the speed limits by 20km to speeds that are impossible to keep up and make everyone a potential criminal ripe to abuse. For bonus point, downgrade vital interconnecting parts of the town that had that speed for decades, and keep quiet about it. Guaranteed revenue.
Instead of threatening Google, why isn't the NYPD asking Google to dump the traffic data... Then filter out the folk who are regularly speeding along the same route?
The driver and any passenger face gets some quality CCTV well before any checkpoints.
Any smart phone is detected.
No smart phone detected? Talking at the checkpoint is the voice print.
The constitutionally approved magic is a K9 unit that can alert on command.
That allows for the K9 approved "search"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Contrary to the ridiculous police claims... the Red Light Cameras and Speed Traps are a greedy money grab.
In the same way that people in the street ask for voluntary donations from a charity. You know you are entirely within control here right? You can easily not pay money to these people. In fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You have not been paying attention.
When you give your money to a company to build the road, they will make sure they own the road.
You will pay for it, though the nose, because they have you over a barrel. But they will own it
And they will charge you extraordinary amounts of money to use it. You and everyone.
Sure, government needs to be watched ( so, why arent we watching ), but corporations need watching too.
The Randian notion that corporate execs are uniformly stalwart pillars of truth, justice and fairness does not seem to apply.
I wish like heck it did, but it dont.
emt 377 emt 4
n fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law.
No, that does not really work... well, maybe, unless you need to Park your Car; or you just somehow happen to be near the camera's view after someone else recently made a violation.
It is called the 1st Amendment, or Freedom of Speech. Next they will try to make it illegal to film the police in public; wait, they already tried that and it failed.
Says the NYPD that illegally used Stingrays to track thousands of people's cellphones without warrants.
If they're allowed to get away with this, you can bet it won't be long before they'll be trying once again to make it illegal to video them when they're beating the crap out of somebody.
The police need to be smacked down hard. If you happen to be part of a demographic they don't particularly like, your odds of getting beaten or killed by the cops for no particular reason are higher than your chances of being injured or killed in a terrorist attack.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Stop messing with our tax collectors!
>/dev/null 2>&1
Well, TFS said this was about DWI checkpoints, not speed traps.
Have gnu, will travel.
No victim, no crime.
Someone hits you, then you own their ass until repaid.
That and voluntarily insuring yourself will cover it.
If nothing else, you sovereign citizen lunatics give me something entertaining to watch on youtube. I love watching your dumb asses blather on about how you're "not driving, you're travelling, and you don't need a license for that!", then get your car window busted out and dragged out of a car while screaming "no victim, no crime." Not sure why, but that amuses me.
Actually on topic... sorry. "Someone hits you, then you own their ass until repaid." So when someone kills my wife/brother/mother/son because they were driving way too fast for conditions and caused an accident I "own them" until they provide me a replacement loved one? I'm not sure if you know, but that's not how things work. Do we incarcerate that person for the rest of their life? Do they owe me some number of millions of dollars? When should I consider myself "repaid"?
Seems to me that a mutual understanding that "this road was designed to handle traffic at 25mph", posting some sort of notice that indicates as such, and paying a couple people to make sure motorists drive within those established guidelines would make a bit more sense.
Google gives LEO all our data.
Google will find a way.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Many of those checkpoints and speedtraps are about making money for them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, either slow down or else pay much better attention. Every time I've gotten a speeding ticket, it wasn't really because I was speeding. I speed all the time but haven't gotten a ticket in over a decade now. The reason I got tickets, was because I wasn't on my game and paying sufficient attention to detect the cop (and slow down).
If I see him in time and demonstrate that I saw him by slowing down, I've passed the test, so no ticket for me. I'm not the problem that society is trying to solve by having and occasionally enforcing speed limits.
If I fail the test by not reacting, gimme my ticket because I could have just as easily killed someone. I should have been watching the road ahead more carefully instead of daydreaming or whatever fuckwitted thing I was doing. I am the problem and tickets are a solution.
Of course, this isn't really the law. But it's how things actually work.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer.
I do not consent to this search.
Am I being detained? Am I free to go?
Am I under arrest? What are the charges?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
If the government pays for something then gives ownership to a corporation, that's the government's fault not the corporations. Of course, Rand would never have had the government paying the corporations to build the road. She would have had the corporations do it with their own money.
There shouldn't be any government roads and nobody should be 'giving money to a company to build the road'.
A need would generate enough demand that would allow a company to issue bonds across the local population to build the road, there would be a private contract for such a road. This road would serve a purpose, it wouldn't be there for political reasons, it would be there for economic reasons, and if it is there for economic reasons then there is competition for such a resource and there is private ownership and thus private stewartship of a road.
A government can spend unlimited money on infrustructure that doesn't do anything, doesn't do anything useful, provides only a reason to steal tax money and to gain political advantage.
A company will spend when there is a profit motive and the people decide whether there should be a profit motive in building any type of infrastructure. Corporate execs are *irrelevant*, whether they are pillars of anything is irrelevant, the only meaningful question is this: is there a need that can genereate profit and if there is a need, does it cover the expense so that the return on the investment would make sense.
Things should be built where they are necessary, not because there is a way to steal and spend everybody's money.
OMFG, you Libertarians are hilarious. You don't like taxes, but are willing to pay for every road to be a toll road. What if the road is not maintained? What are you going to do about it? Complain to the company? They are making more money by not maintaining the road, why should they care what you think? What if they jack up the tolls? What are you going to do, not drive to work? You gonna sue them? LOL
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Trapster was a crowd-sourced app that showed the location of traffic cameras and speed traps before Waze came along. They also listed police checkpoints, until they were buffaloed into removing that feature. Apple refused to allow apps that revealed the location of police checkpoints in their App Store. (Another downside to allowing corporate control over your device via a "walled garden".)
Deterrence is the whole point of having speed traps and police check points... which is completely in-line with people being made aware of them.
Speed traps and check points have NOTHING to do with deterrence. They generate revenue, plain and simple. And perhaps prevention in the case of DWI checkpoints.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
A, "Note also that when you voluntary give your money to a company to build the road..."
Where did the government come in? "You" and "company" were mentioned...
B, "Rand would never have had the government paying the corporations to build the road"
Rand would have the company do it with their own money, sure.
But, look at what corp execs do with networking infrastructure.
They dont serve certain areas, then they introduce laws to prevent those areas from handling the problem themselves.
They work very hard to make sure that they can bill both their direct client, and bill others for access to their direct client ( never mind they would not have a service to sell if it were not for those "others" ).
My point was that corporations are not the heroes very often.
If you give any entity, government or corporation, or person too much control and not enough oversight, you will be screwed.
Note, I do not believe there is anything wrong with earning a profit.
Even a large profit. Just dont be a psychopath about it.
emt 377 emt 4
Where did the government come in? "You" and "company" were mentioned...
I interpreted "you" to mean "the people" as in "the citizens paying taxes." I did so because of the context established by the statement "When you give your money to a company to build the road, they will make sure they own the road." You also later say "government needs to be watched" and reference Rand who talks about government.
I figured you were referring to how building networking infrastructure kinda works. You and I pay taxes, government has telecoms build infrastructure, then telecoms treat it like they own it since they have an exclusive contract with the state.
Just dont be a psychopath about it.
To your original point, we have to watch them because they may well be psychopaths.
Now I want someone to write a parallel story in the world of "Atlas Shrugged" from the perspective of one of the other railroad operators or from the other steel manufacturing company. The ones that want the regulations limiting the speed of rail cars and how much of the special metal each railroad could use.
on YouTube.
Long story short it's a symptom of Tough on Crime Laws and police militarization that's created an "Us vs Them" mentality. The Drug War hurts a lot too since a large percentage of folks smoke pot or know someone who does and that means you're always scared shitless when a cops around since they can arrest you and take your stuff.
The solution's easy: Stop Voting for Tough on Crime politicians, end the Drug war and stop civil asset forfeiture (which was created for the Drug War anyway). There's a few other odds and ends we can do (California has an anti-speed trap law, and properly funding your police so they're not dependent on civil asset forfeiture is a good start) too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
for lots of folks. Eventually self driving cars will take over. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when traffic violations of all sorts just go away.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I found out the hard way when I was 19 in the early 90s.
A friend and I were driving to meet a couple of friends, and we lived in a small rural area. It was night, and a car came up behind me pretty quickly. It was a 55 mph speed limit, and I was going about 50, being in no hurry. I kind of edged to the right thinking he would pass... he didn't. He stayed right on my ass. I slowed down, and he stayed right on me getting VERY close. We were kind of in the middle of nowhere, and I couldn't even tell what kind of car it was or who was in it. We got a little nervous (lots of drunken crazy rednecks in the area) so I sped up to put some distance between us. BOOM, on went the cherries. It was a local state trooper, and I got a ticket for speeding. I asked him why he didn't pass me, and he said he stayed on me to see what I would do.
A friend of our family worked in the local courthouse, and told us later that he was a notorious asshole for doing things like this. There was also mention that I got caught at the end of the month, when he would be ensuring his quotas were met. I think my dad called the local PD, but since he was a state cop they couldn't do anything about it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"I interpreted "you" to mean "the people" as in "the citizens paying taxes.""
Fair enough, I can see that, but that is not what I was thinking then.
On psychopaths, yes, we need to watch all areas, govt and corp.
On regulations, this is why I believe that corporations should not be allowed to participate in politics, message or money wise.
And why I think that donation limits are a good idea.
Policy in a democracy should be set on the basis of what the whole electorate wants ( hopefully, they are smart/informed/invested enough ), not just what a few who wield some power want.
emt 377 emt 4
What IS it with the radical anti-government types CAPITALIZING random words all OVER the PLACE? Seems to be part of a general style for a certain type of commenter, wonder where it originates from.
You're amused because you have a different definition of crime than they do and you don't understand what you're looking at.
We should have different words for:
what is "a crime that harms people directly" (e.g. theft, murder)
what is "a crime that harms people indirectly" (e.g. littering in a public park)
what is "a crime with no victim" (e.g. speeding, jaywalking, staying out past curfew -- assuming it did not result in an accident or disrupt traffic etc.).
Because these are different in important ways.
My county sheriff posts the dates and locations of their checkpoints on Nextdoor. But, he's not trying to collect revenue - he's trying to discourage drunk driving.
Do you have ESP?
An unmaintained road is a great opportunity for profit. Cut big, unavoidable holes at both ends of a residential street (call them unfinished roadwork). When the residents get sick of it and move somewhere else, buy all the property at bargain basement prices. Fix the road, and sell the houses on at a huge markup. Rinse and repeat.
Two men claimed to have walked into a bar. Only one had the bruises to prove it.
That sort of behaviour is finable in the Land of Oz.
Radar detectors, flashing headlights to warn oncoming traffic of police presence, etc
Go well
The courts placed strict restrictions on DUI/DWI checkpoints.Many states also added additional restrictions. I'd be willing to bet that a study done on compliant checkpoints would show that almost every one of these checkpoints is non-compliant with the state and court mandated rules and thus illegal.
Can the Police put fake Police markers on Waze maps and claim 1st amendment? It's not like they're endegering anybody by doing so, and otherwise lying is protected speech too.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Here, and in every similar article, I always read everyone complaining about checkpoints and speed traps everywhere. They say the highway patrol hides on every downhill and tickets for coasting 5 MPH over the limit. Is this really as common as people are making it sound? Is it only particular states that operate this way?
I've been driving in northern California for 20 years. I've never used any sort of radar detector or checkpoint avoidance strategy. I've yet to encounter a DUI checkpoint. I've routinely driven a bit above the speed limit, and only been ticketed once -- by a non-hidden CHP officer on a level stretch of road while I was going 16 MPH over the limit and thus clearly earned it.
This space intentionally left blank
Since when is saying something that's true when you haven't signed any kind of gag agreement against the law?
I can appreciate that the police don't like it, but calling it criminal is WAAAY out of line.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Driving drunk isn't a right, but what law prohibits anyone from telling others about police checkpoints that they happen to know about?
If this is seen as enabling drunk drivers, it's one thing to politely ask somebody who is publishing this information to stop, and perhaps they might in the interests of preserving the public peace, but it's quite another to suggest that they are actually breaking a real law by doing so.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data. I mean based on what you're saying you're implying that all speed cameras will read the parked car instead of the speeding one right?
Or maybe you just found an edge case and the reality is that yes you do have to break the law in order to get fined, unless you're a certain Mr Schultz who as you just stated yourself hasn't actually paid a fine.
udachny is a sock puppet of roman_mir. the latter uses the former to try to convince more people that the foundational principles of his cult are righteous and sane. they both often post at -1 (and have their postings limited here on slashdot) because they have poor karma scores here as a result of repeated abusive behavior and their consistent religious proselytizing that is seldom on topic with the discussion thread..
You're amused because you have a different definition of crime than they do and you don't understand what you're looking at.
It's the irony that amuses me. I see a bunch of idiots driving on a road built by the government claiming the government does not have authority over them.
"A crime with no victim" is a poor argument. By that logic it should be perfectly legal to shoot a rifle in the air indiscriminately in a populated area, as long as no one gets hit. You want to shoot a rifle indiscriminately, or speed in a car, do it on your own private property, not where my family is.
Some people flash their headlights to warn drivers about nearby police presence.
Ooooh an anecdote. I suppose you can also come up with actual data.
Actually, the strained argument needing data is the claim these things are accurate, especially under adverse conditions, and the many many people that claim to have been falsely ticketed by these contraptions.
But the parked car being ticketed is a perfectly valid provable counterexample to the arguments people make that automatic ticket cams don't falsely accuse -- that therefore they should be able to just skip the normal legal requirements+process such as the right to face one's accuser, the fact that the car was parked so glaringly dismisses any possible arguments that the camera could've been right, and the counterexample of 1 automatically invalidates arguments such as "you are entirely within control here," or "In fact in order to pay money to these people you basically have to break the law," or " in the street ask for voluntary donations from a charity" ----- It only takes one counterexample to prove that such generalizations as these 3 are false --- and we don't even need anything more than that.
It is not an anecdote, either; this is a verifiable thing that has actually happened at least once and even been documented and covered by media.
There are of course many others, for example: Chicago, Red light cameras tag thousands for undeserved tickets
But the parked car being ticketed is a perfectly valid provable counterexample
A guy not paying a fine is not a valid counter point to fines being voluntary. Try again.