Boston Cops Outraged Over Plans to Watch Their Movements Using GPS 409
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Boston Globe reports that the pending use of GPS tracking devices, slated to be installed in Boston police cruisers, has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move. Boston police administrators say the system gives dispatchers the ability to see where officers are, rather than wait for a radio response and supervisors insist the system will improve their response to emergencies. Using GPS, they say, accelerates their response to a call for a shooting or an armed robbery. 'We'll be moving forward as quickly as possible,' says former police commissioner Edward F. Davis. 'There are an enormous amount of benefits. . . . This is clearly an important enhancement and should lead to further reductions in crime.' But some officers said they worry that under such a system they will have to explain their every move and possibly compromise their ability to court street sources. 'No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?' said one officer who spoke anonymously because department rules forbid police from speaking to the media without authorization. 'If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes? It's going to open up a can of worms that can't be closed.' Meanwhile civil libertarians are relishing the rank and file's own backlash. 'The irony of police objecting to GPS technology for privacy reasons is hard to miss in the aftermath of United States v. Jones,' says Woodrow Hartzog. 'But the officers' concerns about privacy illustrate just how revealing GPS technology can be. Departments are going to have to confront the chilling effect this surveillance might have on police behavior.'"
They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"has many officers worried that commanders will monitor their every move"
That's sorta the point of this operation.
We know it sucks if you're just in a doughnut-shop and a robbery happens next door.
This will just nudge you to take the robbery first, the doughnut second.
As for the 45 minute dark alley meetings with confidential informants, you can be seen there with the naked eye!
Give your CI a fucking burner-phone, we're in the 3. millennium.
Funny that. (Score:5, Insightful)
pots and kettles etc.
But they were okay with them tracking us? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty ironic to say the least. They loved the idea that they could track anyone at any time but they don't like the idea of being tracked. I feel no sympathy.
Who watches the Watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their commanders? If cops can't trust other cops, why should the public trust cops?
Aww, what's wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor powiceman. Don't worry. After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, right?
An officer on duty has no expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
while performing their duty.
They're expected to fill out a duty log detailing everything which they did.
They're expected to accurately and promptly reply when the dispatcher asks where they are and what they're doing.
If their supervisor shows up on site and asks what's happening they are obligated to comply.
If an elected official whose duties include supervising those in their chain of command shows up, they are obligated to comply w/ reasonable requests for information.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why were you in the alley for 45 minutes?"
"I had an informant who didn't want to be seen talking"
"Oh, okay."
I don't see the problem here. You're on the job, so you should be doing your job. If a supervisor wants to question the way you do it and monitor your movements, fine. Let them... then they have no excuse for any poor performance, because they've been watching it the whole time, right?
Gee officers... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind if you're being watched, now should you?
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
'If I take my cruiser and I meet [reluctant witnesses] to talk, eventually they can follow me and say why were you in a back dark street for 45 minutes? It's going to open up a can of worms that can't be closed.'
Then moron, you log and report it like any other part of a proper investigation, and your commanding officer will be fine. If however you were on that street using your authority to extort sex from a drug addict prostitute, I can see why you are concerned.
Personally, I think all law enforcement officers, with exception possibly of undercover operations should have constant GPS and video surveillance of them (perhaps wearing google glass). Unless it is sensitive information to a current investigation it should be public domain. Once an investigation is complete the same shoud apply.
Law enforcement types tend to be abusive bullies that think they are doing things for the good of others, much like the father/spouse that is beating you 'because I love you'. There is less and less accountability for law enforcement, we need to change that.
Just how reluctant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An officer on duty has no expectation of privac (Score:4, Insightful)
On top of that I would add something largely forgotten: they are acting the public's trust and in the name of the government that is (at least still in name) are acting on the behalf of the public. Every person that pays into that trust with taxes should have the right to know what is going on and hold officials accountable.
Police departments attract people that like to use authority over others and many officers forget they are operating in the public trust. There should no expectation of privacy at all, and I think the Federal courts constant cutting down of rules and laws meant to keep police actions private backs that idea up.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you have data on how often this happens
No - and that is the point of the whole thing.
"Who wants to be followed all over the place?" (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
only the upper party members are allowed to turn the volume down on their telescreens.
Chickens come home to roost (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Public Servants: If you're not doing anything wrong, then there shouldn't be a problem.
Re:Funny that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how many of those same cops would be THRILLED to be able to track every *civilian* without their consent?
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine that an undercover cop isn't doing his job particularly well if he's driving a police cruiser.
Citizens don't trust cops ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plain and simple.
Between cops who think they can confiscate your camera and delete the images, cops who file an incident report only to have amateur video show what really happened, the fact that they want to have warrantless wiretapping and GPS tracking, and generally a lot of bad behavior -- these days citizens have very little reason to trust cops.
Either the perception is they're outright lying to us, or that they're crooked and on the take, or just generally willing to abuse their authority.
I'm sure there are many good an honest cops. But there's also a fair few which seem anything but.
How often has there been an officer involved shooting, which eventually turns out to be a complete misuse of force which we never would have known about without something catching it on video to tell us what really happened?
I'm of the opinion cops should be absolutely tracked on GPS, and should also be wearing cameras to record their interactions with the public. And in a world where the government wants to spy on everything we do, I have no sympathy for police who want to be able to be off the record and leave it entirely to the story they tell us to define the truth.
Often these days one is left with the impression that there's enough cops who are just thugs with badges that you more or less have to assume we're better off by closely watching what they do instead of just taking them at face value.
Because there's been at least half a dozen news stories in the last few years where the police have been shown to be lying, and just circling the wagons to come up with the official story when they do something wrong.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Barking up the wrong tree (Score:5, Insightful)
False, on several points. Every time one of those "masterminds" pushes some abusive big-brother shit, police unions invariably support it, to make them "more effective."
Plus, it was well-established years ago that "just following orders" (being "pawns") doesn't excuse evil and corrupt behavior.
It is perfectly reasonable to hold both the corrupt leadership, and those who spread their corruption through the populate, in the same anger and contempt.
Re:Who watches the Watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Police are civil servants, and paid for by our taxes. Why not have them completely accountable and visible all the time they are on the job?
Straight to internet feeds... no watchers.
Re:That's kind of the idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
We had just started putting GPS on our delivery trucks about a year before I left my last job. The guys who did their route and got back to base in the expected amount of time were never checked unless a customer requested an ETA. However, we had a few guys who always seemed to take a lot longer, so we checked their GPS routes much more often and found stuff like two hour lunches, or going thirty miles out of their way to stop at home... stuff that really impacted our delivery schedules and the workload on their coworkers, not to mention limiting the total number of deliveries (which is to say, income) we could make from a single truck and driver.
tl;dr: Guys who delivered results were rarely monitored at all, and if they were, issues were usually ignored. Guys that didn't deliver good results could no longer give bullshit excuses and were dealt with appropriately.
Re:They are right. (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all police officers need to be much more transparent. Their accountability needs to be improved. Police brutality and esprit de corps types of cover-up of malfeasance is a problem worldwide. Not only in the US, but Germany and the UK, too. There are conflicting reports about the amount of force used during arrests. Too many detainees(the majority of which aren't hardened criminals) have suffered injuries while a band of coppers declared unisono that they fell down a flight of stairs, resisted arrests and the usual nonesense. I'd dearly like to see recordings for everything they do.
On the other hand we shouldn't forget that coppers are also persons with a right to privacy and that the ones who pick up drunks, get called to petty disputes and car accidents are notoriously underappreciated, underpaid and overworked with a high risk for burn-out. They do deserve our appreciation for that.
So I'd say that yes, we should do any type of recording including video, sound and GPS data. But we also need PROPER ways to protect the individual rights of the coppers. If the GPS data is needed for statistical analysis then we should store it anonymously and in bulk with no way to tie it back to individual officers. If we OTOH need that data for accountability purposes then it needs to be sealed away and only be accessed by court order. A proper court. Not a FISA kangaroo court.
You crack your little doughnut shop based jokes but if you spend some thought on a problem then you will find that it isn't so easy to solve in a world that stubbornly refuses to be black&white and where stereotypes hardly happen. This is not a third rate The Simpsons episode.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand we shouldn't forget that coppers are also persons with a right to privacy and that the ones who pick up drunks, get called to petty disputes and car accidents are notoriously underappreciated, underpaid and overworked with a high risk for burn-out. They do deserve our appreciation for that.
No, they are not. They are agents of the state, and the state has no right of privacy. When they're off duty, you're absolutely right - these GPS trackers should not be implanted in their bodies, sewn into their street clothes, or placed on their personal vehicles. However, when they're on duty, they are employees and state actors and have no right to privacy. If they don't like it, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
But we also need PROPER ways to protect the individual rights of the coppers.
Government is in a special category of accountability because it has a monopoly on the use of violence in our society. If a government employee is on the job, he's on the record, no exceptions.
Of course, when he's off the job he has every expectation of privacy of a private individual, including not being tracked by GPS devices.
If he doesn't like "on the job, on the record", there are thousands of other ways to be employed, including private security (which may or may not include GPS tracking of employees as part of the employment contract). Our employment contract with the government insists on accountability "at all times".
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, most cops don't have CIs. Most cops are just sitting around looking to write tickets for minor traffic violations either to make his unofficial quota or to get a bonus in his pay check (varies by jurisdiction).
Frankly, i think I would rather they are off in the back of some parking lot, parked cruisers window to window so they can chat and eat donuts for a few hours than out there "doing their job", because every minute they spend not doing their job, is a minute somebody isn't getting fined for nothing of consequence or arrested for smoking pot while brown.
Re:Funny that. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Do you think they understand the word "irony?"
No, its amazing what you can fail to understand when there is a paycheck involved.
Re:Who watches the Watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, since in private industry it has been repeatedly determined that you have no right to privacy while on the job, why is a police officer any different?
Nobody else gets to have their privacy respected while driving around in the company car.
Given that they can throw you in jail or shoot you, it's a much higher stakes game than if the delivery guy stops for lunch.
Sorry, but this is no different than what the rest of us have to live with.
Re:citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
Police are not part of the military (yet)
Oh, they crossed that line a long time ago. When they're buying armoured vehicles [nbcnews.com], and tanks [google.com] for the streets of the U.S., I think we can safely drop the pretense. Just par for the course [huffingtonpost.com] these days, sadly.
Re:That's kind of the idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but then... here is the very important part: it's open for abuse. The system you mention is a very good system as long as the one doing the checking is wise enough to not push it too far. But it can be very easy to think people should be doing more (the stereotypical boss who wants more productivity and doesn't care about how it works in practice, or looks at the wrong productivity signals [tickets solved vs difficulty/importance of tickets solved]), and/or sanction things that you normally wouldn't even if you knew them.
EVERY system is open to abuse, that's human nature. ... abuse happens. Was this fair to their coworkers-? No.
Those delivery workers who were goofing off were in fact guilty of abusing the current system., so
This rule postulates GPSes be installed in the police cruisers, not the cop's personal vehicles.. they're on the clock, so it'd be a little hard to see how this would be abused. It's accountability.
Re:They are right. (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to hang out with a woman who was a police dispatcher in a fairly major city. She had to know where the cops were at all times so she could call the closest one to any incident that may occur.
She said she did not know of one cop in town that wasn't banging a stripper or a hooker on the side. Most strippers and call girls will have "their" cop who would watch their back and look the other way for a little quid pro quo.
So yeah, having the fact that they park in back of the local "gentleman's" club for a half hour twice a week as public record might cause them some concern.
And with good reason. This quid pro quo is abuse of power.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
I know they fought this out (Score:4, Insightful)
But it sort of reminds me back about five years ago. I was working in a state government office and part of my duties were to occasionally glance through the proxy logs. One day I note some sort of egregious behavior on the part of our Chief of Staff and so I bring it to the unit Director where I'm told "We do nothing about it." I tarried with "So does this apply to everyone?". No answer.
So from that point forward, nobody was watching proxy traffic. We eventually threw up a DansGuardian server but we exempted the upper administration and I.T. So essentially the stooges in other units couldn't go to certain places.
Re:Who watches the Watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's kind of the idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the off chance that you went into law enforcement to serve the public in a very brave and selfless way it will be pounded out of you in short order or you will no longer work for the department.
Rule 1. Don't rat out fellow officers.
Rule 2. Don't make them look bad.
Rule 3. When your benefits are threatened make sure crime goes up.
Rule 4. There are the police and everyone else.
Fuck the police. They are badge wearing gang bangers who murder people and get away with it.
No, "they" are not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a matter of fact, sum it up that way: the more official power or authority an individual has to use, the greater the need to prioritize monitoring that individual over that individual's personal right to privacy. I.e., a cop has a certain authority to alter people's lives, he gets watched. POTUS has an incredible amount of authority to alter the lives of all Americans, he gets watched 24x7. Yeah - the more cream you get to drink from the authority cup, the more vinegar you have to sip from the surveillance cup. That way, nobody watches street people defecate behind the bushes - but we sure ought to be watching the Bush's when they defecate on the US Constitution.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If they don't like it, there are plenty of other jobs out there". There's always that risk I suppose. It's hard enough to get good people to go into law enforcement. Let's make it even less appealing.
I'm willing to take the tradeoff of driving away potential cops who won't go into law enforcement if they have to follow the law.
Re:No, "they" are not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Those that are not protect those that are. They put their fellow officers above all else. If they do not they are drummed out. Those that are left are either criminals or are protecting criminals.
Kelly Thomas. Fullerton PD. Two officers are on trial right now. One beat a man to death and did it while 5 other officers stood there and watched it. Not one of them did their job. If you had put 20 of the officers there the same result would have happened. They are not to be trusted.
Again. Fuck the police. Check out all the video of police hiding, arresting people for filming them, beating people, intimidating, not respecting our rights.
The "good" cops are to busy looking the other way to be decent human beings.