Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Wikipedia

Wikipedia Entries On NYPD Violence Get Some Edits From Headquarters 135

First reported by Capital, and picked up by Reason, it seems that "Computers operating on the New York Police Department’s computer network at its 1 Police Plaza headquarters have been used to alter Wikipedia pages containing details of alleged police brutality." Computer users identified by Capital as working on the NYPD headquarters' network have edited and attempted to delete Wikipedia entries for several well-known victims of police altercations, including entries for Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Capital identified 85 NYPD addresses that have edited Wikipedia, although it is unclear how many users were involved, as computers on the NYPD network can operate on the department’s range of IP addresses. Besides edits to entries about specific instances of misconduct, edits from the same NYPD IP blocks were discovered in Wikipedia entries about the city's stop-and-frisk program and about NYPD misconduct more generally.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Entries On NYPD Violence Get Some Edits From Headquarters

Comments Filter:
  • Surprise level: 0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:15PM (#49254539)

    Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.

    • by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:21PM (#49254551)

      Police tampering with what amounts to evidence of their own crimes? Wow, what a suprise.

      Wikipedia does not qualify as evidence--it would not be admissible as evidence of a crime. Don't cry wolf on that because when police really do tamper with evidence, it's a *LOT* more serious than making updates to Wikipedia.

      I have no problem with wikipedia edits for tone or the like originating from NYPD officers, if there are errors or non-neutrality problems in the phrasing of the article, although they should be doing it in off-duty time. I do have trouble with edits that do not cite to their sources, because wikipedia is not supposed to be breaking new stories unless there's been coverage somewhere. At the very least cops should cite to a blog before editing.

      • Mmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:25PM (#49254573)

        That being said, if these are actually part of someone's job, they should really be making press releases or blog entries where relevant and letting the community update wikipedia; or they should be disclosing who they are when relevant. (E.g. trying to remove the Sean Bell shooting incident--plenty of stories become non-stories over time, but someone with an incentive to remove the story probably shouldn't be able to do so without disclosing their relationship to the subject matter.)

      • by tylikcat ( 1578365 ) on Saturday March 14, 2015 @07:42AM (#49255669)

        It's certainly not about evidence tampering.

        But there are two issues here, and conflating them with press releases is misleading. One is a failure to uphold Wikipedia's conflict of interest standards. That's an internal to the community manner, to some extent (I value wikipedia, and it matters a lot to me). This is the same kind of shennanigans that has had IPs of congressional staffers banned after making politically motivated edits. Yo, this isn't supposed to be your platform for spin doctoring, and if you're too close to the subject, step away a bit.

        The other is propaganda. Look, if they are sending out press releases, one hopes they will be clearly marked as such.* But this is why the conflict of interest problem should matter to the rest of us - because this is a way of retelling the story from a particular point of view without marking clearly whose point of view it is. There's certainly plenty to wrestle with, trying to come up with a reasonable unbiased account. And people who are police officers, and people who are sympathetic to the pressures police officers are under should be part of the conversation - just people who are a step removed from the specific subjects being discussed.

        * Yes, it's not unheard of for press releases to get printed as straight news. Stinks to high heaven, but there you are.

      • by nbauman ( 624611 )

        Wikipedia does not qualify as evidence--it would not be admissible as evidence of a crime. Don't cry wolf on that because when police really do tamper with evidence, it's a *LOT* more serious than making updates to Wikipedia.

        Sometimes the court of public opinion is the only place you can get justice, because you won't get it in the (snicker) grand jury or the courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .

        Tampering with evidence is something that the courts regard as a venial sin a few steps lower in their priorities than caging free coffee and donuts from coffee shops.

        There's a long history of pigsxxxx cops getting caught red-handed lying under oath, not just once but as a routine practice. I'm hard pressed to think of a case when

      • You're right: it's not tampering with evidence, it's manipulating the media.

        Surely the first time that has ever happened.

    • Re:Surprise level: 0 (Score:5, Informative)

      by ihtoit ( 3393327 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:07PM (#49254719)

      wikipedia is not nor is intended as a primary information source. What information is on there, if it is to remain, is backed by citations to original source.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      here, we see how truly STUPID cops are. they didn't even know about hiding behind 7 proxies...

      seriously, though; way to stand for justice, guys.

      your day is over, cops. no one under 40 trusts you. we are all afraid of you - you are out of control - and only fellow authoriarians like you and associate with you. you are not part of the people, anymore and you have lost all our trust.

      the war on citizenry has no winners. sadly, they don't understand enough to even SEE this, much less care.

  • Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jargonburn ( 1950578 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:20PM (#49254549)
    Control of information is Paramount in maintaining a docile populace.
    • It's a shame that most of the populace doesn't even care for information, let alone disinformation.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Come on, this isn't some grand strategy. This is people on their lunch breaks, or playing with their iphone on the toilet, seeing something they personally disagree with and changing it. Obviously they're going to be biased, but so is everyone. As long as the edits are caught and reversed, I don't see the problem.

      That also goes for the "scandals" whenever some Republican/Democratic staffer gets caught editing Wikipedia to reflect his or her party in a better light. It's human nature to want to put your

    • Control of information is Paramount[emphasis mine] in maintaining a docile populace.

      Or MGM, or Sony, or Disney.

      (sarcasm)

    • by Theovon ( 109752 )

      I get what you're saying. And you're right. "Docile" is exactly what they're after, in the negative sense of having people calm because they think everything's just okay.

      That being said, maintaining a CALM population is generally a good thing. We'd prefer to minimize violence.

      Of course, disinformation is a bad thing, and it's important that remain in a condition of philosophical debate over what's good and bad, and what the NYPD is doing is interfereing with honest philosophical debate.

  • Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.
    • Re:NYPD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:30PM (#49254585)

      Cyber warfare. Destroying or altering public records is likely a criminal offense.

      First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records". Secondly, Wikipedia is set up that way. People can make edits. Other people can edit the edits. It's bad form to try to bias an article with opinions or to state facts without citations, but it's not illegal. These changes were caught by editors and presumably corrected if they were in error or introduced bias. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. This revelation might be embarrassing for the NYPD, but it is hardly criminal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?
        • Re:NYPD (Score:4, Interesting)

          by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:14PM (#49254741)

          If we can get Aaron Swartz to kill himself over "Hacking" by downloading a bunch of easily available peer-reviewed journals, why can't we treat "tampering of community works" with the same, broad, over-reaching laws?

          What happened to Aaron Schwartz was a tragedy, as it is any time someone takes their own life. But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass), and rewired a router (that's computer trespass) in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them). That's hardly "easily available". Was the justice department wrong to lay charges in that case? If they were wrong to do so, was it because what he did wasn't a crime or because he was a suicide risk due to mental health issues? If the latter, do we allow anyone with mental health problems to get away with any crimes because they would be a suicide risk if arrested and charged?

          • Re:NYPD (Score:5, Informative)

            by dcollins117 ( 1267462 ) on Saturday March 14, 2015 @01:09AM (#49254993)

            But he broke into a Harvard networking closet (that's physical trespass),

            You mean he walked in. The door is always open. Hell, there were homeless people living in there at one point. Besides, this is a college campus we are talking about. MIT is an open campus.

            and rewired a router (that's computer trespass)

            That's an unfounded allegation, and "computer trespass" is not recognized in Massachusetts. Really, look it up.

            in order to download the journal articles that he otherwise did not have access to (or at least not at the speed with which he downloaded them

            The journal articles are freely available for downloading by anyone for any reason.

            The tragedy is that his life ended before he got a fair trial as none of the allegations against him had any real merit

        • by jcr ( 53032 )

          Because the government doesn't want to punish its own minions.

          -jcr

      • Re:NYPD (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:54PM (#49254677) Homepage
        I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.
        • I wouldn't dismiss the criminal aspect of this so quickly. There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public. If any of the edits were deliberately false, it's entirely possible it was a crime for the NYPD, even if it's not a crime for the jerk down the street.

          Can you cite these laws please? If there are laws as you describe, every President of the United States should be in prison. Also, we don't know for a fact that taxpayer resources were used.

        • There are plenty of laws on the books designed to prevent government agencies from using taxpayer resources on misinforming the public.

          If we ever started enforcing such laws the government would collapse.

          ...so when can we start?

        • by Livius ( 318358 )

          If any of the edits were deliberately false,

          ...that would be very troubling, but what if they were corrections to edits by people with even more bias?

          • If any of the edits were deliberately false,

            ...that would be very troubling, but what if they were corrections to edits by people with even more bias?

            Who cares? Bias people are allowed to sit around and post any crap they like on their own time and equipment. Even employees of private companies should be able to do crap like this if there employer wants them to.

            With public servants this is different though as they all technically work for us, the public. Sitting around, making edits to wikipedia entries detailing their own actions (real or alleged) is not something that most of the public would like to see officers doing. Maybe if they did less of this a

      • Actually the film clips may be part of official records that were discovered and revealed and that may mean that they are still public records even though they are copies posted to a public site. At the very least it is an attempt to distort potential evidence that may be used in either a civil or criminal trial. At the very least all officers should be forced including any supervisors that knew of the acts. Any pensions accrued should be withheld as well. If not criminal it is unethical enough to de
      • Re:NYPD (Score:4, Informative)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Saturday March 14, 2015 @01:27AM (#49255023) Homepage

        Sorry but it is illegal for government employees to participate in politics whilst on the taxpayer dime, during working hours. Whilst not at work, using you private equipment and connection, fine, have at it but when at work, electoral laws kick in and tax payer dollars can not be used for political purposes, well, at least they are not meant to be. These laws are being criminally flouted so often at every level in a corrupt marriage between government and news organisations, at the demand of their owners, the major multinational corporations, it all seems rather quaint to expect any of them to obey any laws at all any more with regard to elections.

      • First of all Wikipedia isn't "public records".

        First of all Wikipedia isn't "public information". Glad to clarify that for you. That nit must have been really bothering you.

        So what line item in the NYPD budget covers lying to the public? When the description of an unarmed suspect is changed to armed that is not exactly a minor detail. In this universe it's called lying.

        It's a crime to lie to the police. Do it and you could go to jail. Do you think that the NYPD is leading by example when someone at headquarters propagates lies on the internet?

        If som

  • hmmm (Score:3, Informative)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:21PM (#49254555) Homepage
    some of the stuff is clear cut abuse. on the other hand some of it is semantics. I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done. The summary leaves a lot of details out (prime click bait!!!)

    But in the end, the cops should not be making edits to these things on wiki. im pretty sure the EULA states (or did in the past) that one cannot update articles on itself. meaning NYPD should not be making any of these edits
    • by Anonymous Coward

      They'll just use VPNs in the future

    • Re:hmmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:35PM (#49254597)

      im pretty sure the EULA states (or did in the past) that one cannot update articles on itself.

      Wikipedia does not have, and has never had, an EULA. There are Guidelines [wikipedia.org] for conflict of interest, but their is no legal requirement that they be followed.

      • you are correct. I was using the term interchangeably, but of course it would not be a legal issue by anymeans, Just a moral and ethical one
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Wikipedia is definitely not a "nation of laws" by any means. Pretty much anything you post and edit is subject to the whim of someone who will revert your edit and tag a vandalism claim to your account without even reading, nor giving a rat's ass what you actually put in.

        Wikipedia is more of a high school popularity contest, where there is at least a little bit of effort to have actual factural data... but if you are not on the "A" list, you could have actual, usable information with quotable sources, and

      • Wikipedia does have a Terms of Use that you must agree to before modifying or submitting content to Wikipedia. It states:

        By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution.

        However, the Terms of Use do not cover conflict of interest. CoI is covered by the guidelines you linked to. I just wanted to make it

      • Wikipedia does not have, and has never had, an EULA. There are Guidelines [wikipedia.org] for conflict of interest, but their is no legal requirement that they be followed.

        Whilst, that is certainly true. This is still corruption. It definitely warrants a police investigation with disciplinary action (firing of all involved parties).
        It's true that no laws or contracts have been violated, but this is a clear betrayal of public trust. The are proper guidelines for addressing factual errors.
        This is the equivalent of police officials writing letters to the editor of a news paper for publication under a false name. Or letters to politicians under false names.

        I don't grasp why s

    • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:37PM (#49254611)

      I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

      There is a world of difference between a choke hold and an arm bar. One breaks your arm/elbow and you get to live. The other can be used inappropriately and the recipient ends up dead. They are in no way the same.

      • I would add that not only are they two different techniques, but even were it two names for the same technique, to someone without a martial arts background "arm bar" isn't going trigger any concern that choking is involved. Substituting in a less alarming sounding name to make something dangerous sound safer can be pretty problematic.

        That, of course, is getting away from the point that the techniques don't really have much to do with each other. (Really, they are more families of techniques, especially arm

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI

      Most relevant: Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

      • by aevan ( 903814 )
        Wikipedia makes a lot of claims to policy. The enforcement of said remains subjective.
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
      New York City Police Department policy prohibits the use of chokeholds, and did so before the indecent. So I would say that the change is quite significant.
      • and as someone who is not a martial arts expert, I wouldnt know the difference between a choke hold and an arm bar (or any other moves) If the move that was done goes by a different name to justify being legal, it should be noted is all im saying. Again, its not something NYPD officers should be doing, especially at work.
        • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

          arm bar is done on the ground and stresses the shoulder and the neck (it's a legal jiu jitsu submission hold; outside of a legally sanctioned tournament it's well, not legal). Choke hold is done standing up and stresses the neck (choke hold done by an inexperienced person can end up breaking the neck - which is why NYPD and every martial arts school and tournament including MMA have banned it).

    • Re:hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:25PM (#49254787) Homepage

      I can see the revised police procedure manual now.

      "When a suspect resists, but them in a "warm embrace" by placing your arm around their throat and squeezing."
      "If a suspect does not follow your instructions, give them a "gentle scalp massage" with your night stick."
      "Once a suspect is down, form a "cuddle pile" of 6 or 7 officers on top of them until they stop struggling."

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      An arm bar is not at all the same thing as a choke hold. As the name implies, an arm bar is applied to the arm of the person you're executing it on, while a choke hold is applied to the neck and is extremely against procedure (although, of course, not really illegal in any real sense because a cop is really allowed to do anything they want to you). If the NYPD has decided to start referring to a choke hold as an arm bar, they're doing it in a desperate attempt to confuse the situation, which is sad and also

    • some of it is semantics. I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

      Terminology that replaces generally used terms with those used by a relatively small group has no place in Wikipedia. This isn't about semantics, it's it's about obfuscation.

    • by jcr ( 53032 )

      I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move

      They strangled an innocent man to death. Letting them play little propaganda games like this allows them to pretend that they didn't murder him.

      An arm bar is a wrestling move that immobilizes someone by applying force to his arm. A choke hold is not an arm bar.

      -jcr

    • I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

      I see a problem with it, but I just looked at the article and it appears the changes have been reverted to say choke hold once again. Hopefully further edits to the article will come under close scrutiny now.

      • Make sure the edits by NYPD are done, add a section about edits being made with logs and lock the article. After all, IP adresses are being used to ruin people's lives by MPAA, so an IP identifies a person right?

        • yes! publish their IP net space and show the logs of them editing their own pages to create a spin of bullshit propaganda. then lock that fucking page!

          enough is enough. its time they learn that they are not the ultimate masters of us all.

          the thugs are great at physical violence; but they are not thinkers; and they will not win this kind of war against the people. as dumb as people generally are, they are - on average - smarter than the average cop.

          and yes, you have to fail an IQ test (so to speak) to be

      • by nbauman ( 624611 )

        I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

        I see a problem with it, but I just looked at the article and it appears the changes have been reverted to say choke hold once again. Hopefully further edits to the article will come under close scrutiny now.

        The other change that got reverted back to choke hold was "headlock."

    • by nbauman ( 624611 )

      some of the stuff is clear cut abuse. on the other hand some of it is semantics. I dont see a problem with changing "choke hold" to "arm bar" is that is what the police call the move that was done.

      No, changing it from "choke hold" to "arm bar" is changing a word in simple English that everybody understands to a word that is in jargon that only the police would understand.

      Wikipedia guidelines say that it's written for the general public, not specialists in a field.

      It's a deliberate effort to obscure the truth and deceive.

  • by Hartree ( 191324 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @10:43PM (#49254635)

    You set up an open access, anyone can edit, system like Wikipedia, and you're surprised when people edit it when they might have a vested interest?

    This is the very reason why Wikipedia is a poor source on some political or controversial issues. Usually it's better for some of the technical issues, but not always.

    It's a powerful tool, but trying to make it something that it's not, a guaranteed to be unbiased source, is a bit unrealistic.

    • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

      the rule about it being not a primary source kinda fixes that. If you don't cite your sources, the article is deprecated, simple as.

      Kinda like the scientific process: cite your research, or bullshit be called.

      • by aevan ( 903814 )
        Excepting the ability to make a webpage saying something, and then have another person ('web journalist') quote it, and suddenly your original research, without any proof or review, is now credible fact. Do it a few more times and it's irrefutable and you don't even need words like 'alleged' anymore. A reinforcing circle jerk of obfuscation.
      • by Livius ( 318358 )

        the rule about it being not a primary source kinda fixes that.

        No, that enables the problem. It's first on the list of fake pretexts the bullies use to get their way.

    • there is always a residual bias in any information source, we're human, it's inescapable

      but that's hugely different than outright manipulative propaganda

      wikipedia is absolutely fine being incomplete and sketchy, as long as it tries to be neutral

      so when wikipedia goes after shitbag edits like this nypd episode, it proves it is committed to the ideal, which is as good an effort as you will ever get

      the time to worry is when you find a shitbag edit yourself, you raise an alarm flag and cite a source... and your

  • If you can't read about it on the internet, it didn't happen.

  • by ihtoit ( 3393327 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:21PM (#49254773)

    and the fact that Taisha Allen (one of the two people who recorded the choking death of Eric Garner) has been arrested and beaten by NYPD officers?

    http://rt.com/usa/240261-nypd-... [rt.com]

    It's public domain now, bitches! Edit THIS!

  • Wow with all the wonderful stuff turning up in investigations such as civil forfeiture (direct theft from citizens to fund departments and even individual cops in some cases), racial harassment, straight up treating all citizens like violent criminals, shooting to kill for minor offenses, I have no idea why people no longer respect them.

    However this is a good move by police. Vandalizing Wikipedia pages to push an agenda, while wildly popular, will likely do more harm than good and lower public respect
    • cops are stupid. they'll just double-down on the derp (using the parlance of our times..)

      they don't care anymore if they have our respect. they now have our FEAR and they love that even more.

      look, you have to have a thug mentality to be an american cop. its not about justice, its about beating people up and getting away with it. there's a famous 'cartoon' where this phrase is used and its very commonly brought out each time a cop goes out of control and it reaches the news.

      it reminds me of the clockwork

      • Since I realize that in the Western hemisphere there are a number of nations that have referred to themselves as "united states," and you claim to be in the "united states," I have to ask: Have you ever actually been to the United States of America, the one immediately south of Canada? The totality of the substance of your comments would seem to indicate the answer is "No" and that your only familiarity with it comes from the most lurid tales from a fringe left weekly.

  • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:35PM (#49254821) Homepage Journal

    "Cover up" and "media management" are US traditions.

    "Justice" died a long time ago. About the same time the bar association came on the scene.

    Expecting anything like "honesty" from a department that shoots or otherwise kills unarmed civilians is insane.

    • Dude, didn't you get the memo? It's not the justice system, it's the "just us" system now. Something about hooked on phonics and hillbilly BS but it seems they literally believe it is the "just us" system now.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Friday March 13, 2015 @11:38PM (#49254831)

    I've seen a lot of dicy things go down on wikipedia over the years.

    They're generally okay with non-controversial information of a very general nature. But anything that gets political or very specific... and you can't trust them.

    It isn't just that people will go in or hire people to go in and change things in their favor. The community itself is often biased or just lazy.

    They'll do things like make a statement without attribution or proof and then if you say it is wrong they ask you for proof.

    Or they'll say something is true and use as evidence a blog post or a tweet as if that's evidence of anything. And then if you say that is wrong... they'll say "where is your proof"... never mind that they were posting assertions without proof in the first place and the burden of proof was on them.

    It is an on going thing on wikipedia.

    I like the service a lot, it has a lot of really good information on it... it is just very vulnerable to assholes and lazy idiots.

    • by srijon ( 1091345 )
      Where is your proof?
      • You want proof? I will give you proof. You want citations? I will give you citations.

        All I ask for is, give me half an hour and then check Wikipedia.

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

        And those are just the ones wikipedia will print about itself.

        There are other issues I'm aware of that are not in that list. Issues where long time editors got banned or where various articles got locked arbitrarily with incorrect information preserved.

        A lot of it boils down to ignorance and a general lack of integrity amongst a lot of people. They want to be seen as right more then they want to actually be right.

        They're very "ends justify the means" type people not apprecia

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Police have the same right to edit Wikipedia as anyone else.

    • And they have the same right to have their edits subject to scrutiny as anyone else.

    • Wikipedia doesn't generally allow people or entities to edit themselves. Falls under "original research", which has always been banned. I could fly to another planet and say "the sky is green", and I wouldn't be allowed to post that that planet has a green sky. Someone else would have to.
  • There are two sides to every argument. Obviously the NYPD changing these entries goes against the terms of use. But if someone from Al Sharpton's National Action Network created the entry in the first place it seems like just as much of a violation. I wouldn't expect accurate information from either side.

  • Nothing to see here. It's just that the NYPD shares some IP blocks with the Ministry of Truth.

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.

Working...