Drunk Driver Mugshots Featured On Facebook 321
An anonymous reader writes "Get yourself a DUI and your mugshot may get some exposure on Facebook. That is, if you get caught in New Jersey by Evesham Township's police, which have begun posting mugshots of arrested people, convicted or not, on its Facebook page. Now, we know that if you get arrested, your privacy is pretty much limited to the brand of your underpants, but the local police department has started a controversy and may find itself in hot water. How much value does a public mugshot on Facebook have to the public? What privacy rights do you have if you get arrested?"
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:5, Interesting)
Newsday [newsday.com] has been publishing DUI arrestees' mugshots on their website for at least the last few years.
Just to follow up with an example: http://www.newsday.com/7.25434?q=mugshot&type=example.Image [newsday.com]
I always find it strange that there has to be new laws whenever a new medium comes a long. Why aren't laws generic? If there is no problem posting mugshots on the internet, then posting it on facebook should be no different. If it *is* a problem, then it was a problem all a long, and the involvement of facebook actually put a light on the issue (that someone then should fix).
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyone can stand out in front of a police station and take pictures of people on a public street. when a government agency peddles these pictures it's the same as inciting a mob in the old days to lynch or beat up people before a conviction at trial.
Posting not convicted - very dodgy - an example (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting pictures of people who have been arrested but not convicted would seem to be very dodgy territory, the police could be exposing themselves to all sorts of law suits. While the police generally try their hardest to do a good job, mistakes can be made. Putting up pictures of people who are later released without charge might still cause those people complications in their lives, whether it is over-zealous local vigilantes, or employers.
A friend of mine is a primary school teacher. He had to break up a fight between two ten year old boys a couple of years ago. As he was separating them, one of the parents arrived (end of school day) and then claimed my friend had assaulted her son. This all took a couple of months to sort out, nearly finished my friend's professional career. He was proved completely innocent, classic case of an insane parent believing their little Jimmy never did any wrong. My friend was incredibly stressed and depressed throughout, years of hard work possibly destroyed by one stupid parent, and ended up moving town to take up work in another school where he is very successful, has been promoted twice.
I can only imagine what might have happened to him if his pictures had been on Facebook for those two months with the caption "suspected child assault". He would have been under intense psychological pressure, and perhaps local parents might withdraw their children from his care, or pressurise his head teacher to sack him, or even taken illegal direct vigilante action. And then at the end after they'd ruined his life they'd find out he was innocent. Even if they gave him his backpay and reinstated him in his old job, he could have been in a very bad way psychologically if he'd been attacked as a result of this, maybe rumours would have spread that couldn't be stopped (his neighbours in his street saying "well he was proved innocent but I don't want my kids near his house" etc).
Posting pictures of arrested but not convicted folk in any circumstance, whether on Facebook, or a town billboard, or in the local paper - no - I think this is difficult territory.
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:3, Interesting)
Extra-judicial "justice" is all too common nowadays.
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:5, Interesting)
go ahead and try it, then. stand outside a police station and snap photos. ...let us know how dark the inside of their jail cell is, too.
cops today are UBER sensitive about us taking their pics. I'm a photographer and I follow all the news stories (mostly UK but the US is trying to catch up) where the cops arrest this guy for shooting a pic of a cop in public or they demand your camera or even worse: demand you delete photos (all are technically beyond what a cop can demand! only a judge can demand you delete photos, IN COURT).
I find it the worst kind of doublespeak for cops to encourage bullying of the public by posting photos of arrest victims and yet will arrest YOU if you try to take THEIR photo.
we need a 'cop book' site that has photos, names and addresses of all cops and public politicians. let that run for, oh, say, 10 years. lets see how that experiment goes. at the end of 10 years, we'll see if this 'idea' is good or not. if its good and the beta test passes, we'll then OK it for the cops to take our pics during arrests and post them.
but just like all new ideas, this needs a beta test period. I hereby volunteer all cops and politicians to have their picture and personal details posted and collected in an easy to search format.
good idea?
Neighbor, Meth (Score:2, Interesting)
Problem is, there wasn't any. It was only suspected (due to past boyfriends) and they found nothing and had to release her later that night but the persona damage is still done to her and to the neighborhood.
So I'm not really sure how I feel about this as DUI is slightly different when arrested. And I don't see how FB is any different than the nightly news or papers.
Re:Don't think this can be stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just surprised that they can list you before you're actually convicted.
If you suffer negative consequences, say you get fired from a job as a bus driver or something after your boss sees the accusation and you are later found innocent how do you not have the right to sue for lost earnings etc?
Re:Posting not convicted - very dodgy - an example (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's another scenario:
1) Cop makes a pass at your daughter and gets rejected.
2) Cop now has a chip on his shoulder.
3) Cop arrests you for DUI (bogus).
4) You are not charged with anything, but...
5) Your mugshot is now prominently featured on that facebook page.
And before you reply with the quaint notion of suing them, let me continue
6) It is your word against the cop's, guess whose carries more weight?
7) The police dept closes ranks, finds "witnesses" and manufactures "evidence".
8) You lose the suit and are now short an unspecified amount of dineros as well.
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:2, Interesting)
The notion that "driving is a privilege, not a right" has been twisted and abused so that if you are accused by the state of a DUI offense, you either have to incriminate yourself or suffer a punishment for not incriminating yourself.
The choice there isn't a hard one at all. One gives the state the evidence needed to secure a criminal conviction against you. The other is a civil citation that takes away your license for six months and raises your car insurance rates. I'll take option B Alex....
Agree with you that "implied consent" laws are bullshit. Thanks for nothing MADD.
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:5, Interesting)
MADD can kiss my fucking ass. They aren't even about drink driving anymore -- their Founder left the organization because they've turned into (in her words) a neo-prohibitionist organization.
The fact that I have to drive through a roadblock and explain why I'm using the roadway just because I had the nerve to buy groceries on a Saturday night is infuriating.
Re:It's stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:2, Interesting)
FB is a commercial enterprise. why on hell is a police force (governemnt agency) HELPING PROMITE THE PROFITS of a stupid commercial (and crass) website?
Because the police have been doing the same exact thing for newspapers (another commercial enterprise) for many, many years now, and Facebook demanded equal treatment?
Re:The Smoking Gun (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that today your name is in the paper. Tomorrow it's wrapping fish and by next week it's in the dump or recycled. Sure, the newspaper is still available on microfiche in the library, but there's no index, certainly not for a police blotter.
Meanwhile, your mugshot is still up on Facebook being seen, effectively re-published every day it isn't taken down. It's indexed on Google.
It's the difference between catching a bad cold and catching HIV.
Re:Meanwhile, on Long Island... (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidentally, the reason they're doing this is usually that they're required. See, before they were required to publish that information, we had secret arrests...
Anyone who'd looking at the issue of 'We've decided you have no privacy rights when arrested' is utterly wrong. We didn't say that. We made cops release that information to safeguard people's rights.
You can't have people demanding 'habeas corpus' if the police don't tell people they've arrested you. (And please note the 'one phone call' is a myth.)
If they're using the release of that information in an abusive manner, or we just don't think it's worth it anymore, we have every right to make them stop.
Incidentally, as we've recently gone back to having secret arrests, I'm not entirely sure we should get rid of this yet. It might be a good idea, in fact, to apply it to the CIA and whatnot, who have apparently determined they can imprison people without informing the public.
Re:here, let me fix that for you (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a non-story. This is a public safety agency using a new medium, and so it is "scandalous". Same dog, new tricks folks.
But yet here it is, on the front of slashdot with a very active comment thread, and it *IS* scandalous. Why just DUIs? Why Facebook, not their own website? Are they trying to profit off of this service? Was going to the station to request this information too hard? No, not really. Is releasing these people's personal information before they are convicted of any crime morally okay? Absolutely fuck-tastically not. It may just be the same dog with some fancy new tricks, but I for one still want the mutt neutered.