Woman With Police-Monitoring Blog Arrested 847
Kris Thalamus writes "The Washington Post reports that a Virginia woman is being held in custody by police who allege that information she posted on her blog puts members of the Jefferson area drug enforcement task force at risk. 'In a nearly year-long barrage of blog posts, she published snapshots she took in public of many or most of the task force's officers; detailed their comings and goings by following them in her car; mused about their habits and looks; hinted that she may have had a personal relationship with one of them; and, in one instance, reported that she had tipped off a local newspaper about their movements. Predictably, this annoyed law enforcement officials, who, it's fair to guess, comprised much of her readership before her arrest. But what seems to have sent them over the edge — and skewed their judgment — is Ms. Strom's decision to post the name and address of one of the officers with a street-view photo of his house. All this information was publicly available, including the photograph, which Ms. Strom gleaned from municipal records.'"
Sorry, lady. Incitement to violence is a crime (Score:3, Informative)
While it's quite possible that this lady has done nothing legally wrong, I'm afraid she's going to find herself in a similar legal boat as the guys from TPB. Her blog serves no purpose but to obstruct and foil the operations of police activity, not to mention puts the lives of these police officers in jeopardy. It's hard to think what her motive could be.
Another similar case was the website which listed the names and home and office addresses of abortionists. Just for informational purposes, of course... But some lunatics went out and killed several of those doctors. The website was held accountable for incitement.
This website is, in its own way, inciteful.
Re:Big Brother doesn't like it (Score:2, Informative)
When the boot is on the other foot.
Good one, Jack!
Re:Sorry, lady. Incitement to violence is a crime (Score:5, Informative)
Is it in the public's interest for individual officers to have their names, pictures, addresses and photographs of their houses published to the world?
Would you appreciate it if that were done to yourself?
Now imagine that you work out in public, and there are people with whom you come into contact (and reprimand) who may have violent tendencies. Can you imagine that? Good! Now ask yourself those first two questions again. Do you still think that that information is in the public interest?
Oh wait, you posted on Slashdot as an Anonymous Coward, so obviously you fear anyone finding out anything about yourself, yet you most likely don't do anything more dangerous than working at McDonalds.
Just for the icing on the cake, her blog is called "I HeArTE JADE" which to me (I may be reading into this the wrong way) comes across as "I HATE JADE" and even a quick perusal of the site leads me to believe that she is acting out of pure vindictiveness, while trying to pretend that it is out of awe and respect.
Re:Sorry, lady. Incitement to violence is a crime (Score:3, Informative)
"Being inciteful is not a crime."
Bullshit - Incite to riot is a crime.
Re:Not so happy when the shoe is on the other foot (Score:3, Informative)
You assume that what they state is what they actually believe is. That would be purely trough coincidence.
They know exactly, that that is just a lie to get to what they want.
But hey, my sig says it all: It's not about what you have to hide. It's about what they want to find.
Combine that with Cardinal Richelieu's (of inquisition infame) statement of needing seven lines from the finest man, to find something to hang him, and you got to the core of the problem.
Point is: There is no such thing as freedom or fair law. We still live with the law of the jungle. It's just hidden better. But the strongest people still make the laws.
Nowadays the strongest person does not even need to have any real strength. They found out that it's enough if people *believe* they were stronger.
Like a government: Those some thousands or tenthousands of people could not withstand hundreds of millions of people. Ever. But they still are the strongest in the people's minds.
I've Been Following This (Score:5, Informative)
I've been following this story for a few years, or rather following it as it developed.
Her ex-husband is Kevin Strom, a prominent white nationalist and white supremacist* who was arrested [slashdot.org] for possession of child pornography and beating his wife (while threatening worse if she testified against him) a couple of years ago. He'd been stalking a ten-year-old girl, regularly cruising by her house, giving her gifts, sending her love letters, and proposing to her. (The kid's parents were none too thrilled.) It turned out, bizarrely, that none of that is illegal [cvillenews.com] -- but possession of child pornography landed him in prison for a couple of years [cvillenews.com]. He was released earlier this year. He was also, incidentally, an inveterate troll of one of my blogs, so I've got a special dislike for the guy.
Anyhow, Elisha is every bit as much of a racist as Strom, only she's also a feminist, which means that racists think she's scum, meaning that basically everybody hates her. Based on her blog entries, commenters on my blog [cvillenews.com] have come to the conclusion that she was having an affair with one or more of these police officers. To my knowledge, she's never had any interaction with JADEâ"that is, neither she nor her husband have been busted for drug possession by them. So her interest in them appears to be romantic. Spurned, she's started stalking them, and expanded her interest to include all members of JADE.
What I can't shed any light on is whether or not this arrest is appropriate. I've been involved in a couple of high-profile bloggers' free expression cases (as a defendant in both cases), and though you'd think I'd rush to defend somebody in her positionâ"cretin though she may beâ"I just don't think it's cut-and-dry enough. The fact that she's putting this stuff on a blog seems to be irrelevant, by which I mean it's not a special form of expression here. She's not acting in the manner of a journalist, by which I mean that there is no goal to her coverage, no public interest being served, no story being pieced together. She's simply taking private information about private individuals who happen to work for the local government (albeit in a very private capacity) and making it public.
The question here is simply, I think, whether stalking laws are meant to cover people who are public employees. If a racist who advocates violent rebellion against black Americans starts following the a black secretary who works in the county office building, documenting her every move publicly, can the police intervene? Or is that his right, because she's opted out of a right to privacy by working for a government agency? There is a legitimate argument to be made that it is his right, in order to be consistent with what is to be expected for more prominent public employees. But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, after all, so maybe we should put less thought into being consistent and more into protecting our citizens. I'm not being vague to be cute -- I really don't know what's right here.
* I regret that covering these nutcases involves learning things like that there's a difference between being a white nationalist and a white supremacist.
Re:Not so happy when the shoe is on the other foot (Score:5, Informative)
This post isn't trolling. Obama admitted in his book "Dreams From My Father" that he had used both cocaine and pot. That would disqualify him from any security clearance.
Actually, it doesn't. Failing to disclose it could.
Re:Not so happy when the shoe is on the other foot (Score:4, Informative)
"They retain their arrest powers even when off duty -- in truth, they are never off the job. "
Any reasonable citizen of this country has those same arrest powers - Citizen's Arrest.
Except a citizen that performs a "Citizen's Arrest" potentially open themselves to civil and criminal charges; they don't enjoy many of the protections that a police officer has when carrying out their official duties.
You could, for example face assault charges if you try to use force in making your arrest; and civil liability if you arrest the wrong person.
Re:She is a NUT (Score:1, Informative)
I totally agree. People who hold unpopular opinions should be locked up for life. How dare she!
Re:publicly available, but... (Score:3, Informative)
She was charged and has thus far declined to pay the $750 bail. It's in the first paragraph in the article.
Re:They wouldn't have arrested her (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They wouldn't have arrested her (Score:3, Informative)
Parent not insightful (Score:3, Informative)
Government is the result of many people living together being "civilized." It reflects the people it governs; in a democratic system that means the people run the government-- practicality dictates employees, volunteers and representatives because the mob can not equally do everything for many reasons.
The city IS forced to serve the public's interests; not you individually, an average of the group's interests and the system by which that averaging occurs greatly influences how it works--- how the citizens participate and how much they can THINK being the largest factor. Corporate hijacking of the system is a function of the flawed system (which will never be perfect; it runs on humans) and LARGELY the citizens themselves who must fire the traitors who serve another master. If the public doesn't do its job the system can't save them and neither can good public servants who'd likely not stick around for long. Furthermore, dictators are essentially elected by the inability of the people to collectively overcome them.
The point behind a democratic system was to civilize the process of violent revolution that ALWAYS has and will be required. It also lowers the bar for kicking the bums out; but it also lowers the VALUE of transition. There is less cost involved; therefore, less value.
Public servants are NOT normal citizens! They should not be entitled to all our rights; just as the military takes away many basic rights from those public servants. As far as I'm concerned, it should be so bad that they have trouble finding people who want the jobs! As for police, we have a constant surplus where I live doing other jobs because there isn't enough work--- and we require college degrees and they still have waiting lists. Politicians are far far worse-- they should practically have their own reality show with a camera permanently bolted on their heads! (well, almost that severe-- they should never be allowed to work again; I'm sick of these former officials being loophole lawyer "consultants" and lobbyists its like their job was about setting up deals for later if not while they are in office.)
Re:Not so happy when the shoe is on the other foot (Score:4, Informative)
I can confirm that you can get a security clearance with both pot and cocaine drug use in your history. I stopped using 3 years prior to applying for "clearance required" job.
In my clearance application, I explained the use of each substance. After 8 months of background checking, my clearance came thru. I worked in that environment for the next 8 years before moving into the private sector.
Re:Expose a problem and go to jail (Score:4, Informative)
I agree with (what I think is) your larger point that obscurity is used in a lot in everyday life and is most definitely of greater than zero benefit, but I think this part of your post calls for a clarification:
In the context of encryption, "security through obscurity" is NOT intended to refer to keeping an encryption key private. The phrase instead refers to the practice of keeping the decryption *algorithm* private as a means to enhance security... a practice that is widely held to be inadvisable due to (a) the danger of someone reverse engineering the algorithm, and (b) the lack of widespread exposure of the algorithm resulting in the few eyes that do see it missing the occasional algorithmic flaw.
Keeping an encryption key private is of course essential, and so is keeping your housekey in your own possession. But the housekey and the house lock both have all the information needed to enter the house, whereas a solid encryption algorithm does not have all the information needed to expose the data... and it would therefor be incorrect to imply that the security imperfections inherent in the house lock/key mechanism apply to encryption.
Re:I've Been Following This (Score:2, Informative)
The fact that she's putting this stuff on a blog seems to be irrelevant, by which I mean it's not a special form of expression here. She's not acting in the manner of a journalist, by which I mean that there is no goal to her coverage, no public interest being served, no story being pieced together.
So, the first amendment only protects government-approved publications, such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal?
Sorry, no. Neither you, nor a court, gets to make the determination that one journalistic medium is special and another isn't. Neither you, nor a court, gets to make a determination that there's no public interest being served in what is clearly political commentary. Neither you, nor a court, gets to make a determination that there needs to be a story "pieced together" to qualify for first amendment protection. Otherwise, we get the exact opposite of a free press - a press that only is free if the government agrees.
Re:They wouldn't have arrested her (Score:5, Informative)
Revealing classified information is against the law.
No it is not. If you come across classified information in public then you can do whatever you want with it. There are recent anti-news-reporter laws that prevent one from convincing someone with clearance into revealing classified information to you, but otherwise if you find it in an open source (term of art, not to be confused with software) then you can do with it what you will. Sometimes two pieces of information will not be classified unless combined together but if you aren't cleared in the first place you can combine that information yourself and it still isn't classified.
So for an uncleared person to reveal undercover cops' identities by observing the police station and using public records can in no way be considered a security violation (another term of art) by that person. It might be a violation on one of the cops' part for exposing himself when he should not have.
The Plame affair was a whole different story, Armitage was cleared for access to know that she was an agent. He violated his clearance by telling that information to an uncleared person.
So, in summary, it is even more lopsided than you made it out to be. In no way can this blogger have revealed classified information since she never had access to any in the first place. But Armitage clearly did so in direct violation of his clearance.
Re:Intelligence Gathering (Score:3, Informative)
And how is this different from watching the Daily Show and jerking off to Bill Maher et al?
The Daily Show isn't serious. Glenn Beck means every fucking word he says and it's borderline hate speech.
Re:Not just the cops (Score:3, Informative)