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.
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?
That's kind of the idea. (Score:2)
Re:That's kind of the idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:That's kind of the idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no problem with cops being tracked while on the job. I actually think it's an excellent idea. What I am worried about is the slippery slope. We've seen it with drug testing: at first, it was only the people who REALLY needed to have their shit together, like air traffic controllers. Then it was train conductors. And school bus drivers. And truck drivers. Now, it's just indiscriminate: janitors, secretaries, nurses, accountants... (although strangely enough, the managers who oversee these workers usually don't have to piss in a cup.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
School bus drivers don't need to have their shit together?
If there was ever an actual 'think of the children' need, that would be it.
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: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: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.
Re:No, "they" are not. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, that's exactly what they've evolved into. Today, they are armed and armored paramilitary who destroy innocent lives and maintain a culture of isolation and privilege.
Just for example... [cato.org] and then there is this... [policemisconduct.net]
There's your "most." And mind you, these are just the screwups that have come to light. For every one on that map, there are hundreds or thousands more where no one reports anything because to do so puts you on the police radar, the last place any self-aware citizen wants to be. The idealized view of police forces has for some time diverged greatly from the reality. I doubt you could find a single police department in the USA that isn't corrupt, holding the blue line, handing out favors, etc., and let me take care to include legislators, lawyers and judges in this condemnation. The system is just barely functional enough that it doesn't fall apart, and little more. As the previous posted said, if you do enter into this kind of public service with the idea to serve and protect, that attitude will be most thoroughly adjusted within a short span of time.
Re:No, "they" are not. (Score:4)
You're applying a general mis-informed malicious stereotype against millions of people. *Some* of them are probably close to what you describe. But MOST are not--they're tax-paying citizens who get up every morning, put on a Kevlar vest, a uniform, and a badge, and go out to deal with the best AND the worst of humanity.
"MOST"? How can you know that? I've known a few cops that seem to be dedicated. But (1) they're overwhelmed by the institutional pressures of the police department (2) they have a culture of silence and don't identify crime among their fellow officers. That's their job, right -- to fight crime? But not crime by cops. It only takes a few corrupt cops to corrupt the whole system, and there seem to be more than a few corrupt cops. Maybe the majority.
In New York City, there were hearings every so often, like the Knapp Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapp_Commission [wikipedia.org] where corrupt cops had to testify under oath, in exchange for lighter sentences. Corruption was overwhelming. I used to work in restaurants, and the cops would expect to eat free. One of the cops at the Knapp hearings testified that an honest cop was one who brought his lunch in a brown paper bag.
More ominously, according to overwhelming testimony of the recent stop and frisk case in New York, the police routinely target young black men, search them illegally, illegally force them to "empty their pockets," and arrest them on small-time marijuana charges, which would have been a violation, like a parking ticket, if they hadn't emptied their pockets. So they gave hundreds of thousands of black men misdemeanor records, which disqualified them for education loans, public housing, and even food stamps.
It's the Highway Patrolman who climbs into an ambulance to hold the hand of a severely-injured driver who has no one else there for her;
Please, no violins. I've often noticed that when a cop is involved in a horrible abuse, like killing an innocent person, the police union's lawyers drag out all the stories about how he's saved a cat in a tree. Saving a cat in a tree doesn't exculpate an unjustified killing.
Re: (Score:3)
>I was completely onboard with your comment until this last line. Grouping all law enforcement and then dragging them through the dirt like you did is disgraceful.
>Please kindly fuck right the fuck off, and don't call 911 next time you or your property are in jeopardy...
Except that it's become largely true. You can find many, many examples of it. Most recently, cops firing into a minivan after the officer immediately started escalating a routine traffic stop and made a family fear for its life enoug
Re: (Score:3)
This [newsone.com]
This [dailymail.co.uk]
This [examiner.com]
This [alternet.org]
This [myfoxdetroit.com]
Calling 911 when you life is in danger rarely does any good. Even when it is not screwed up chances of the police showing up in time to stop what you think is about to happen to you are small indeed.
Cops protect cops.
How many cop murders go unsolved? Not many. Why? Because when a cop gets murdered cops think it is important to catch that person. It is not very important to catch your murderer though.
Re:That's kind of the idea. (Score:4, Informative)
What do you call a person who takes an oath to protect and serve the public but ignores it when it is a fellow cop causing the problems?
I can tell you this. I do not call them "Good Cops".
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dark Alley. 45 minutes. "Informants."
Uh huh. I think they misspelled prostitutes.
And second, police on patrol (the article said cruisers). Do police detectives (not the type that write tickets) have cruisers? Idk, I'm no expert. But I know ticket writing police ain't taking down drug rings and shit. They patrol the streets. They don't have "informants".
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:They are right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. I can't imagine situations where people are doing the right thing, that they have reason to show concern. If anything, it should defend them further.
Pretty typical of cops: "The more we can be held accountable, the worse it must be for us! Woe unto us!" as opposed to "Holy shit, I can actually do my job now and not be told I'm not - via proof".
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.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Funny)
"Most crimes happen in a shady area!"
Wall Street?
Re:They are right. (Score:4, Funny)
The tall buildings make it shady.
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally unhackable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, guys, no cruisers within 20 minutes from here - let's hit them.
Do you live in Nebraska?
Re: (Score:3)
OK, guys, no cruisers within 20 minutes from here - let's hit them.
Officers are dispatched, and are reporting their location, all the time - by talking to the dispatcher, usually over an open channel. (At best it's P25.) Their location is known well enough for a criminal, but not well enough for the backup (especially if something happens on the way to destination.)
However the GPS data can be easily encrypted, and it will be always correct and up to date. A criminal cannot easily intercept and interpr
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:They are right. (Score:5, Interesting)
This will just nudge you to take the robbery first, the doughnut second.
Do you really think that's what this is about? I doubt it. Having the location of every cop in town will be very useful to those in charge, but not for the reasons you think. The guys on the ground aren't the only ones subject to corruption and malice. The mob will have an inside guy that will be able to tell them exactly where every cop is at any given moment.
I'd rather have cops eating doughnuts than having the mob knowing with absolute certainty that they are not eating doughnuts at the diversionary shooting on the other side of town. In fact, if I wanted to start intimidating cops, there's nothing better than knowing their exact location at all times.
Don't let your schadenfreude lead you to rally for something stupid. This sounds like a divide and conquer technique to me... "They're watching you!! Serves them right! Let's watch them now too." The correct course of action is to restore the rights of the group who lost them, not take the rights of everyone else away.
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)
Do you have data on how often this happens
No - and that is the point of the whole thing.
Re: (Score:3)
No - and that is the point of the whole thing.
Actually, it's not. I mean it's really fucking not. I realize this is /., where cops are bad and independence rules, but some reading comprehension would get you to realize that the point of this has to do with dispatch calls, not police officer donut consumption.
Actually, it is. I will spare you the italics, and my reading comprehension is correctly calibrated. We don't know where the cops are or for how long because we don't track them currently.
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.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They are right. (Score:5, Informative)
Underpaid? They work 20 years and are then effectively made millionaires on the backs of the citizens. How much would you have to put aside to retire at 42 and be guaranteed an inflation adjusted income for the rest of your life? Police officers are very very far from underpaid.
Re:They are right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they're human beings. Combine that with a near-complete lack of accountability, and history and the status quo both show us where that leads. It started the other way around, by the way. The "good old days" of police being members of their communities went by the wayside with the war on drugs and resultant militarization of the police force.
There's a reason for the old snark "To a cop, there's 3 kinds of people: cops, cops' families, and suspects." Add to that the fact that unchecked corruption at the top makes the only difference between cops and mob thugs one of scale -- when laws aren't made for the public good, but at the boss(es)' whim, those enforcing them lose the moral high ground.
AFAIC, the police forces have a lot more fences to mend than the citizenry, at this point. The former deserve all the flack they get, and more.
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: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, Interesting)
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.
I'm all for that.
Right after they ensure the same things for the citizens they monitor. A protection that - at the moment - is sorely lacking and the government is showing great reluctance - and even opposition - to codifying. The various law-enforcement (and other unrelated) agencies are grabbing every bit of information about its citizens and compiling massive dossiers about each and every one of us, and despite claims that it is all just "anonymous metadata" it has been shown how easily this information can be tied together to get data about specific individuals. There needs to be some protection against this sort of Hoovering.*
Until that happens, I not only want every police officer monitored every second he is on duty, but every politician too. We've given them great power over us; it's time to ensure that it is being properly used. If they feel that this sort of intrusion into /their/ lives is too much, they can damn well be sure the same can be true of ours.
We're the bosses of this country. They're just the petty clerks we've hired to do the dirty work (although it sometimes seems the political caste thinks things are the other way around). That sort of authority ought to get us /something/!
* I named this tactic both after the vacuum and the unscrupulous FBI administrator who utilized similar, albeit low-tech, methods to do the same; clever, huh? ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would -any- copy demand a citizen turn off his or her video/audio recording device if they "have nothing to hide"? It's because they don't want their asinine behaviour to be broadcasted on Youtube and entered as evidence in their/your trial. -They- want control of the evidence to ensure your conviction/their exoneration. How many times have we heard "oh, the cameras weren't working" when it benefited law enforcement?
Check out the case of this man convicted and sent to jail for rec [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Funny that. (Score:5, Insightful)
pots and kettles etc.
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:Funny that. (Score:5, Informative)
You mean beyond the GPS trackers that have already been found on civilian cars?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/gps-tracker-times-two/ [wired.com]
Re:Funny that. (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPS trackers are peanuts. Every squad car has a camera and a computer that reads every license plate it passes. It stores all of this in a massive database. They track EVERY care on the road with this. If you pass a cop, your position just got logged. They literally know where just about everyone is or was at any time unless you head way out in the country.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/virginia-state-police-used-license-plate-readers [aclu.org]
We're probably about 10yrs away from the government knowing your position at all times via license plate scanning on cars, along roadways and monitoring stations that read cellphone wifi data. Not to mention the likelihood of GPS being required in cars to track "Millage" for "Tax purposes. The surveillance state is here, they are watching you. 1984 was a joke compared to what our children will face.
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: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.
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?
Re: Who watches the Watchers? (Score:2)
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: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:Who watches the Watchers? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Aww, what's wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, I don't think public servants should have a right to privacy while on duty.
To police: You can have your privacy or your handcuffs. You pick.
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.
License to fu*k off Revoked (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:3)
I'd only argue that I would replace "pays taxes" with "citizenship". Lots of foreign visitors pay taxes of one sort or another, but its citizens who the cops are primarily in charge of protecting. Likewise, not all citizens can, do or are able to pay taxes but should still be able to hold the police accountable (eg. underage people, low income people, etc).
Might also fix their speeding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Might also fix their speeding (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me about it, in the UK a Policeman was let off doing 159mph [bbc.co.uk] as he was the "creme de la creme of drivers". They completely ignored the fact that other drivers have no ability to deal with people driving at over twice the expected speed on a motorway.
This happened to me on a dual carriageway (70mph limit) - I looked in my mirror and saw a car in the distance and estimated that I had enough time to pull out and overtake the lorry. By the time I'd started indicating and pulling out, a Nobel was on top of me - based on the distance covered he must have been doing about 140mph.
Gee officers... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide you shouldn't mind if you're being watched, now should you?
Beware hidden effects (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a reason this ended up on the ACLU's website.
If you read TFA, Boston uses automatic license plate readers (ALPRs). Since each readout is logged and timestamped, this log data correlated with location history for cruisers could be used to build a massive location history database with very good coverage.
Barring that, as a public servant, a police officer is not entitled to privacy while on the job. As they are granted powers most people are not, they must also expect to be held accountable for their actions.
When off the clock, an officer is entitled to privacy like every other citizen. Keep in mind, the GPSes are installed in the cruisers. They're not ankle bracelets for crying out loud. If they're on foot patrol (do cops still do that?) the red dot on the dispatcher's map will show their car's location. The question mostly remains, then, do Boston cops typically drive their cruisers home, or leave them at the station and drive their personal cars home?
Since the goal of this tracking is to make 911 dispatching more efficient, the simplest solution is just to not record historic location data - show it in real time, and that's it. This mitigates tthe data mining and privacy issues while still giving 911 the tools they need.
Re: (Score:3)
That just isn't quite right. Police officers have a legal duty to act as law enforcement officers while off-duty under a variety of circumstances. They are not just private citizens.
Example: Colorado Springs Police Department Operations Manual
http://www.aele.org/law/2007LRSEP/colo-springs.html [aele.org]
Simple solution (Score:2, Troll)
Give the officers the ability to turn off the GPS tracking momentarily (undercover mode) and both sides should be happy.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
only the upper party members are allowed to turn the volume down on their telescreens.
Re: (Score:2)
And suddenly the entire Boston, MA, police force will be undercover at all times. Your move, terrorists!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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)
... so... (Score:5, Interesting)
... the watcher is watched and finds out they don't like it? Well, well...
I'm in the midst of reading a book on Victorian England. It's interesting to learn a little about how policing came into being. No surprise to me that from the very beginning, policing had nothing to do with protecting and serving anyone but the monied classes. Policing has _always_ been about subduing the restless masses. [Hey! I'm a poet and don't know it!!!]
Awww... (Score:4, Funny)
... & here I am playing the world smallest violin for these poor, put-upon police officers.
Now they'll have to do their job (Score:2)
they'll have their freedom to do what they want restricted, so of course they're outraged. That's really the only issue here.
Plausible deniability. (Score:2)
This is where you pick the dark back street behind the donut shop.
Bostonian here (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
They're not sleeping, they're conducting tests on organic photon-blocking retinal shielding.
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.
Our company does exactly this same tracking. (Score:3)
Lookouts (Score:2)
Meanwhile in Canada (Score:2, Informative)
I work in Law Enforcement in Canada (not a cop) but I can tell you that up here, in my area anyways; we have GPS not only in the cars, but on each officers individual RADIO. Hell even the meter maids have GPS in their radio. Its an officer safety question, when you make an Officer needs assistance call dispatch immediately knows exactly where you are, and everyone else can respond accordingly. I've never heard any officer complain about it.
It has other uses too, for example the bylaw/parking officer can
Re: (Score:3)
I'd bet dollars to donuts that Canadian cops are a bit more on the up & up than Bostonian cops.
Good Idea (Score:2)
Oh the irony ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of Boston's NPR this morning having a series on prostitution in Boston, and talking about the frequency that Boston cops are seen ... well, lets just say not arresting the girls ...
No wonder they don't want GPS in the cars ...
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:Citizens don't trust cops ... (Score:5, Informative)
The majority of cops are good or try to do good.
Ex-cop here, most are crooked in the way we would think. Most commit felonies on a semi regular basis. This is true in big cities or rich suburbs. People believe that its just a few bad actors, its the entire culture. Thats why I quit after several years. The last of the good cops retired by 2003ish (vietnam war era guys, who were trained by the ww2 guys) and were replaced by insane children with no guidance. They were told their job was Law Enforcement, not policing. Just because you know a cop and he is a good person in your eyes does not mean he does not engage in illegal and immoral behavior, they all do and all know to keep their mouth shut about it. The first rule of law enforcement is not to talk about law enforcement, especially with outsiders. Nothing I see on the news surprises me, it will only get worse until cops start getting put in prison. The only saving grace is the unlimited statute of limitations on homicides, lets hope the political will of future generations will find justice.
Funny timing (Score:5, Interesting)
So many cops have such a "Bad Boy" look these days. They carry themselves as if they're mean and tough. And frankly, I couldn't imagine asking one for help. Last year, I was in North Carolina and was lost and my phone battery was dead. I walked up to an officer and politely asked him if he could point me towards the local train station. He abruptly pointed and walked away. I eventually asked someone who looked like a criminal as I was out of options and he gave me good directions and a light for my cigarette.
I think cops who are used to a little too much freedom might need this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's part of their training. In fact, it's part of basic psychology. To control a situation, you have to be ready at any moment to command, and working from a position of strength is far more useful than working from a position of deliberation when you're talking about even a relatively peaceful crowd. That's not to say you didn't happen to ask an asshole where the train station was. However; if he was in the process of tracking anything out of the ordinary, your request falls just below "I don't care" on
chilling effects? (Score:3)
Naw, it's just typical union mentality that gets in the way of something like quicker response time. This means that resources get used more efficiently, reducing crime and not having to incur additional costs such as more police. That's contrary to labor practice which is let's hire more people. Or they could just be trying to find the best doughnut/coffee shops in town. Does this mean when the police get caught up in all the "police state" surveillance there may actually be some thoughts of saying we've gone to far? Naw, the Administration and the Defense contractors have too much vested interest in selling all those drones and cameras and license plate trackers. So, cops of Boston, consider this a jobs program but not for you but for all those oinks in DC living off of our Tax Dollars.
chilling? Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Normally chilling effects are bad, but, I have long felt police behaviour could use a serious chilling effect, maybe even a freezing one.
However, that was always just my feeling, now that there is some data: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/body-cameras-revolutionizing-police-accountability-video/ [theliberta...public.com]
When police know actions are being recorded, a 60% drop in use of force. Amazing how people's actions change when there is a credible witness.
Held to a higher standard (Score:3)
Those who are employed as public servants, be they police or fire or even plain old government workers, should expect to be held to a higher standard. You are working for the public, not some company or even some NPO. You work for everyone. With that comes an additional level of responsibility, and thus additional scrutiny.
I find it disturbing when a police cruiser is being driven recklessly, particularly when the lights aren't flashing. I similarly find it amusing that police don't want to be monitored - given recent stories about officers caught spending their patrol time sleeping. (Do a Google search. Its rampant enough that you'll find plenty of hits) If the GPS says the cruiser hasn't moved for the past 60 minutes, we probably know what's going on.
As to the remarks herein about attitudes of officers towards the citizenry, I concur. Every interaction I've had with uniformed officers has been identical. I'm the idiot for asking directions. I'm the one at fault for whatever is their current interest. I'm the criminal. I'm the one that needs to be 'dealt with'. Whatever happened to "Serve and Protect"?
Finally, we have far too many police. If the only thing your officers have to do is to sit along side the roads and point a radar gun, then you have too many police. Police unions will never back down from forcing city and county governments to hire ever more patrolmen. It is counter to their interests. However the number of patrolmen on staff should be dictated by the crime rate and the response requirements of the community - not its population.
This is horrible... (Score:4, Funny)
The poor dears... Coppers can never catch a break, can they? Like when they accidentally empty their magazines into some scary/scared-looking family and their trained attack-poodle because they smashed down the wrong... like, 'cause the family was living at the wrong address, even though it was obviously an accident, they still get swapped on deir poow widdle wists... even though they got a suspicious-looking animal off the streets. It ain't right, god damn it.
*sniff*
Now my Boston cream doughnut's turned into a Boston stream doughnut, 'ca... well, 'cause it's all soggy with tears! :o(
*weeps to bagpipe music*
I know... I'll go shatter some poor asshole's life, that always cheers me up! :S
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.
this is not surprising (Score:3)
Remember, this is the state where a citizen who was being harassed recorded the officer, and was convicted of a crime for breaking the state's law against recording police. This is the state where all the courts, all the way through the state supreme court, upheld that travesty.
This is also the state that pulled the same shit years later on a lawyer, who then skipped the state courts and went straight to federal court, who had very very unkind things to say about that law and the state supreme court ;-)
cops are generally for the police state (Score:3)
wrong (Score:3)
You guys don't get it - cops aren't against this because it'll catch them breaking the law, they do that all the time now with impunity. They're against it because their boss will be able to see them taking naps in parking lots.
The only way you get to a cop is to threaten to take away their OT, tenure, or pension.
I think that's ass-backwards, but I guess that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Brings a whole new meaning to "do not track..."
Re:I feel like a hypocrite (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, to me it comes down to "trust, but verify".
The police are the ones who hold all of the power in an exchange with citizens; and there have certainly been cases where police have shot someone (or whatever), claimed it happened in a specific way -- and only when someone's cellphone video surfaces do we realize the cops were completely lying to us.
In fact, we often see that several officers conspired to give us a story to make themselves look better in the exchange. And then the review board reviews it and determines there was no bad behavior.
So, from a perspective of "who watches the watchers", I'm of the opinion that police, government, and agencies like the NSA need to be under really close scrutiny to prevent them from committing widespread abuses.
Us little people have far less recourse when it comes down to our word against theirs. Which means we need to be objectively verifying what they say and matching it with what really happened.
Unless you want to live in a world where the police can be as corrupt as they feel, and generally act like criminals and get away with it -- monitoring what your police officers are doing is far less intrusive on individual rights than just letting them do what they want.
Police can pretty much ruin your life (or take it in some cases). So the stakes of what they're doing is far higher, and needs to be held to a higher standard. And if it requires actively monitoring them to achieve that, then tough for the police.
Re:"Who wants to be followed all over the place?" (Score:5, Interesting)