GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com 561
mikesd81 writes "Wired is running a story about GoDaddy shutting down a police watchdog site called RateMyCop. However, GoDaddy can't seem to give a consistent answer as for why. From the article: 'RateMyCop founder Gino Sesto says he was given no notice of the suspension. When he called GoDaddy, the company told him that he'd been shut down for suspicious activity. When Sesto got a supervisor on the phone, the company changed its story and claimed the site had surpassed its 3 terabyte bandwidth limit, a claim that Sesto says is nonsense. "How can it be overloaded when it only had 80,000 page views today, and 400,000 yesterday?" Sesto says police can post comments as well, and a future version of the site will allow them to authenticate themselves to post rebuttals more prominently. Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal, which, of course, wouldn't pass constitutional muster in any court in America.'"
1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
I might even go so far as to say that I'd _like_ to see the government try and crack down on sites like this (and wikileaks etc), as this will only draw more attention to the problem, causing replication of the data and hastening the process of smart people finding even better general solutions for circumventing censorship.
The current situation in America really does look like 1984 already - not just the spying and media manipulation, but also the continuous fearmongering and blatant lies to justify this protracted and costly war. However I believe there really is hope for us to turn this around, and that the solution lies in leveraging the internet, encryption, and the same technologies being used now to spy on us. Let's keep finding better ways to protect information, let's keep uncovering the corruption, and let's turn this around before it's too late.
not enough boobies, that's why (Score:2, Interesting)
Reasons not valid... oh, those are numerous and probably why the cops freaked and GoDaddy's knees buckled.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". This can present a legitimate danger if there's pictures or other personally identifiable information right there on the site.
There is a superior need for transparency in any society, but sometimes that has to be balanced against personal safety - including the safety of the cops.
As for the 1984 allegories? I suspect that you all-too easily attribute to malice what can be more easily attributed to incompetence, greed, and disparate desires that happen to run in parallel. For example, the Media manipulates to elicit drama and eyeballs, by which to convert into advertisement profit. Politicians manipulate and propagandize (in both directions!) in order to garner popularity, votes, and power (for both themselves and their ideology).
Trust me - having seen the US Government form both inside and out? I can say with certainty that as a group, it would be easier to put a colony on Mars than to organize that gaggle into any sort of overlord-type Big Brother organization...
Bandwidth explanation reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:2, Interesting)
Some punk kid shoots out my headlight with a BB gun. I'm driving to the store to get a replacement. You're saying I should get pulled over on an equipment violation that I'm in the process of correcting?
How about speeding to the hospital because I've got someone suffering a heart attack in the back seat, and the ambulance would have taken another 10 minutes. I'm doing 50 in a 35 zone with light traffic. The cop should give me a ticket right there? Or perhaps escort me to the hospital THEN ticket me?
Even Rule of Law can be taken too far.
Get Involved as well! (Score:5, Interesting)
All you gotta do is just simply watch the police go about their usuall routine. If they threaten you to leave remind them that they are public servants and that you are fully within the scope of the law if doing so
Go on and observe, It is your patriotic duty!
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, you have bad cops. You've also got a lot of good cops who would be harassed and defamed by users of this site. Frankly, it's as stupid as that site that lets high school kids make unsubstantiated complaints about their teachers. Just because you have free speech, doesn't mean that you can use it to make a person's life hell.
Re:Chief Dyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
My oh my, but why should being hoisted by your own petard not be permitted?
handicappped permit trumps all, in some places (Score:5, Interesting)
Had she been blocking traffic, that might have been another question, but the simple reality of it was that she never got a parking ticket in a town that lives on parking ticket income.
Re: Ticket for driving to the hospital (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a few minutes away from where I live: A driver got a ticket for driving too fast to the hospital [canada.com]. He was taking his buddy who was accidentally hit by a co-worker's powerful nail gun.
Now if this cop only had discretion enough to waive the ticket.
Re:Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
The shooter-subject in question wasn't a random guy who had a parking ticket and was pissed... this was a honest full out crazy. Batshit-Loco. This was the sorta character who was 100% unrational, and would often show up to make a scene at the meetings.
People had wanted him ejected from the council meetings before, but the mayor made the decision that everyone had the right to speak in the public forum.. even if they were not going to be coherent in the slightest. It should be noted that the same mayor was severely wounded in the shooting.
So yes. Free speech. Double edged sword. Doesn't make it a bad thing though.
The site should stay up. It will stay up; streisand effect and all that
Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
The dystopian future to worry about isn't 1984. It's Brave New World. Orwell warned us that we would be oppressed by a totalitarian government, but Huxley realized that Big Brother isn't even required to deprive people of their liberties.
Do you, like Orwell, worry about books being banned? I, like Huxley, think we should worry about the more pervasive problem that nobody wants to read books. Are you afraid that information and the truth will be deprived from us? The fact is we get more than enough facts to know the problems - it just gets obscured in wave after wave of irrelevance. We have so much information available and constantly given to us that we don't deal with any of it. We've become passive; we don't require an organization to take away our liberties, we give them away voluntarily.
1984 was a future where society was controlled, repressed, monitored. People are kept in line by strict enforcement and punishment. Brave New World's future is trivial, preoccupied, distracted. People are kept in line by hedonism, drugs, pleasure.
Like the parent post many are quick to identify anything that looks like Big Brother. But I think we need to be aware of the possibility that we're closer to The World State. I'm grateful for our technology but am hopeful for where it takes us. But I think people need to be aware that while this technology can enpower us, it can also enslave us.
Protection must be inversely proportional to power (Score:3, Interesting)
Those in positions of power must not have the same protections as those who are powerless.
1: The position of police officer is a position of great power.
2: The position of police officer is extremely attractive to sociopaths [wikipedia.org].
3: Some (many) police agencies are--umm--less than perfect at filtering out these especially-eager applicants. Some departments do not filter at all (i.e. they don't perform personality inventories on applicants), with the obvious results. Given that non-sociopaths generally strongly dislike working with sociopaths, it stands to reason that these departments quickly become dominated by the latter. I've lived in city with a police department that did not test its applicants for mental disorders, and that's a large part of the reason I now live in a city with a police department that does.
4: It does not make sense to give a person in a position of power all the protections that are afforded to others. For those in a position to cause suffering to members of society, the interest of the society in preventing abuse clearly outweighs the interest of the individual. (If you want all the usual job protections, don't pursue a job that lets you hurt people.)
Yes, some police officers will be treated unfairly in such a forum. Some will be publicly embarrassed when they don't deserve it. If the forum is effective, some will lose their jobs when they shouldn't. I would think it would even make undercover operations more difficult. All these issues are far outweighed by the benefit of exposing those who should not be allowed to be in positions of power.
A tale of two traffic stops (Score:-1, Interesting)
Example (and this is true):
Traffic Stop 1: I see the lights. I pull to the side. Megaphone tells me to go to a driveway. I roll down window.
Cop: Step out of the vehicle. [I get out]
Cop: The reason I pulled you over is for speeding. Are you in an emergency?
Me: No.
[gets insurance and license from me]
Cop: What's all this on your back window? It's a mess! You can't see out of that! Why are you driving with it like that?
Me: Well, that just formed because of the weather.
Cop: Have you been smoking marjuana in this area recently?
Me: [stunned, both at the sudden pot accusation and why he cares about "in this area"]
Cop: [repeats]
Me: Uh... no. (?)
Cop: I'm just asking because you're acting real funny right now.
Me: Yes, I'm just kind of introverted.
Cop: And that's supposed to explain your bloodshot eyes!???
Me: I've been at a computer all day.
Cop: Wait here.
[writes ticket for forever]
Cop: What's your phone number?
Me: [Not sure if it's a home number he wants, or if I'll have to be called in a few days, since I'm traveling] Um, like the number for where I'll be for the next few days?
Cop: I need a number WHERE YOU CAN BE REACHED.
Me: Well, you can always get me on my cell...
Cop: No, [moron,] not a CELL PHONE!
Me: [gives home number]
Cop: Now, sign right there.
Me: What does my signature here mean?
Cop: You've got to SIGN RIGHT THERE!
Me: What am I agreeing to by signing this?
Cop: [dumbfounded for a few seconds] By signing this, you are saying you received this ticket.
Me: [signs]
Cop: [Takes forever again, I take the chance to wipe condesation off back window, then dismisses me.]
Traffic Stop 2:
While approaching an interstate, I see a police car parked under the overpass. An overloaded pickup turns infront of me and drives through. As I pass the officer, his lights go on and he gets behind me. I turn into an apartment complex, as does the pickup, which turns to the left thereafter, and I turn to the right and take a parking spot. The police car comes to me and parks. I roll down my window and turn off the engine. The officer approaches.
Cop: Good evening sir. The reason I pulled you over is for doing 40 in a 30 mph zone. Are you in an emergency?
Me: No.
Cop: May I see your license and insurance.
Me: Yes, I'll get it out of the glove compartment.
Cop: Is this on your license your current address?
Me: Yes.
Cop: [Leaves for a while and then comes back]
Cop: Please sign right here. It is not an admission of guilt, just that you will show up in court on the specified day.
Me: [signs]
Cops: Here's your ticket, please drive safely.
***
These descriptions are more useful than the actual numerical value, since they tell exactly what the officer did that was objectionable. I would describe the first as being a complete dick, and the second as professional, even though the legal outcome was the same.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
And police officers aren't like game designers. Police officers have the right to come into your house and kill you. Given that, I think they deserve a bit of scrutiny. Hell, I think they deserve a LOT of scrutiny, like 24/7 surveillance, GPS implants, weekly gas spectrograph drug tests, yearly competency testing, affirmative action, no unions, etc.
Obviously the problems with police officers aren't getting handled, that's why there is all the guerrilla surveillance going on.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
Hold on there! Anecdotal evidence a universal case does not make.
Personally, I've seen both but it really depended on where you live. Generally, in larger cities you'll see cops that are too busy deal with little things whereas smaller municipalities often have quotas simply to meet budgets.
However, there are always cases of high level corruption everywhere and I've heard some nightmare stories about NYC cops. The real reason you haven't met any bad cops is because you haven't traveled enough.
Re:not enough boobies, that's why (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of whether you believe police discretion is fair (it should be, but it isn't, because police officers are people too and therefore by definition unfair) it is necessary for them to do their jobs.
Discretion in itself is fine with me. What's not OK is laws that are only tolerable because discretion allows them to be ignored most of the time and lawmakers who write them that way under the assumption that discretion WILL be used.
Quite frankly, I don't see a point in a website like this. There are plenty of venues which one can use if one feels that one has been unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement, not the least of which are the courts.
If you're going to court with it, a site like that could be a good place to look for witnesses who can testify to a pattern of abuses and establish credibility. Even anonymous users might respond privatly to a posting requesting assistance in court.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
He didn't have to. We could have easily waited 4 hours for another cop to come along.
He was very nice and professional, calming the girl whose car was pushed into mine in a chain reaction.
I wrote a note to his superiors about how great he was.
They sent me back a thank-you which had also been copied to the superior's superior, the cop himself, and the cop's service record.
Always Always Always Always try to reward good behavior when you observe it.
Re:Bandwidth explanation reasonable (Score:3, Interesting)
Office of the President Response
Dear xxx,
The situation with the Web site RateMyCop was absolutely NOT about censorship in ANY way.
The site's operator has publicly disclosed the concerns were over bandwidth. More accurately, Go Daddy's concerns were about how the RateMyCop site was far exceeding the amount of server usage for which it had contracted.
This customer paid for a shared server plan. The connections to his site were six times more than an entire 'shared server' accommodates. While he was paying for a service that cost $14.99 a month, his site actually required a much more extensive set-up.
Basically, he was paying for compact car, when he really needed a semi-truck.
The customer was not willing to work with our staff to resolve the issue.
While the "censorship" allegations certainly make for an edgy "story," they simply had nothing to do with this situation.
- Go Daddy
Office of the President