Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the sunlight-is-the-best-disinfectant dept.

Privacy 391

jfruhlinger writes "People are starting to comb through the details of the law enforcement documents made public by LulzSec. Blogger Kevin Fogarty noticed one interesting trend: The cops seem very anxious about iPhones, particularly apps that would allow encounters with police officers to be recorded. Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."

cancel ×

391 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Funny... (5, Insightful)

DMFNR (1986182) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560320)

Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.

Re:Funny... (5, Funny)

syntheticmemory (1232092) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560350)

What have they got to hide, some illegal activity?

Re:Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560442)

He has a gun!

Re:Funny... (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560448)

You could even use, say, the word "ironic" or "Ironically" to describe this, couldn't you? If only the article had such a term to help point out this contradiction.

Re:Funny... (4, Funny)

carpenoctem63141 (2266368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560750)

I don't get it, how does this situation at all resemble a black fly in your Chardonnay?

Re:Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560842)

I don't get it, how does this situation at all resemble a black fly in your Chardonnay?

Hahaha!!!!!

Re:Funny... (1)

BinarySolo (1951210) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560888)

Or in other words, "Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."

Re:Funny... (2)

246o1 (914193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561054)

I see you're going for the rare "Redundant First Post." Bold.

Re:Funny... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561236)

Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.

What expectation of privacy does a police officer have when engaged in the public enforcement of the law?

I'm not a lawyer, I'm genuinely curious.

Re:Funny... (4, Interesting)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561240)

They (law enforcement) REALLY, REALLY HATE IT when the get caught on tape (so to speak) committing murder, beating the helpless, framing citizens, violating the "laws" they are sworn to uphold, yup it pisses them off!

Just a little "for instance" in San Jose, CA some year back two burly young 200lb plus officers wearing body armor responded to a "disturbance" at the home of a 4' 10" tall 88lb woman who it turned out had psychological issues, she had not taken her medications and was panicking because her child had become locked in the bathroom, she had been using an Asian-style vegetable peeler to try to pry open the door, when the aforesaid burlies saw the peeler they "thought it was a cleaver" and as we know two large men are no match for a distraught 89 pound woman! The officers, "fearing for their lives" opened fire and shot the lady many, many times (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable) at point blank range!

IMHO, these men are COWARDS, SOCIOPATHS AND MURDERERS, but of course they were rewarded with paid leave and a pat on the back!

Land of the free & home of the brave!
But you can be shot dead anytime for anything or nothing at all!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CopsOutofControl#p/u/1/QwWJeAnobeY [youtube.com]

Can JoeMonco please step up to the mic? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560332)

Has JoeMonco weighed in on this at all? I can't form an opinion without help from JoeMonco.

no expectation of privacy (5, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560346)

none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand? they are public servants out in public serving the public, no chance of privacy, the sooner they get this trough their head the better behaved the police will be and the less chance of law abiding citizens being brutalized...

Re:no expectation of privacy (0)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560520)

Technically, I agree with you. But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government? Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

Re:no expectation of privacy (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560546)

"all rights to individual privacy"? No, of course not. No one is arguing that we should have the right to watch police officers or government officials when they're at home with their kids, that's stupid. We're saying there should be no expectation of privacy while they're on the job performing a public service, with public money.

Re:no expectation of privacy (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560552)

Your scenario is completely different. There are even case law rulings to back up the fact that public servants in public do not have a right to privacy. These states and cities who abuse wiretapping laws to stop people from taking public videos of cops should be punished for gross misuse of the legal system.

Re:no expectation of privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560766)

There are even case law rulings to back up the fact that public servants in public do not have a right to privacy

Well, you know, courts get stuff wrong all the time. I mean, sometimes the actually acquit perpetrators after all of the hard work of dedicated law enforcement personnel. The nerve. It's like they're saying "We think you're wrong, Mr. Policeman. We think you're lying." And that's just not acceptable. That makes me mad. That makes me wanna make sure justice is meted out before the wussy namby pamby bleeding heart courts get involved.

Re:no expectation of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560574)

Technically, I agree with you. But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government? Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

When they are on duty? Yes. It used to be just expected. It was when I held a commission.

Re:no expectation of privacy (4, Insightful)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560586)

should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?

When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

Oh, btw, there's nothing secret about recording police officers, it's pretty obvious you've got some sort of recording device.

Oh, btw2, it's been ruled by courts that employers are allowed to dig through any of your shit that the company owns, like your company cell phone to see who you've been texting.

Re:no expectation of privacy (3, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560590)

I think it depends largely upon the influence/authority/power that position holds, and if we're discussing recording an interaction between the employee and a member of the public.

You should be able to record any interaction with a government representative that you interact with during the execution of their duties unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent it.

Personally, I've never heard a legitimate reason for why someone shouldn't be able to record police/public interactions.

There is no right to privacy at work. (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560966)

There is no right to privacy at work. Even for private businesses. Well, in MD anyway.

Re:no expectation of privacy (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561112)

I don't see how your hypothetical situations that are actually relevant.

If they were at home with their family, then they'd be entitled to privacy. When they're out on the streets dealing with the public, then no.

It is illegal for your boss to record you while you work because that smacks of slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a policeman sitting at his desk is entitled to the same level of protection. Furthermore, even if it was the case, an average office worker doesn't have the institutional authority to pull a weapon and beat or kill another person. Don't you think that warrants a little extra safeguarding?

Re:no expectation of privacy (2)

n5vb (587569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561146)

But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?

If they're interacting with the public in an official capacity, particularly in the adversarial way cops tend to interact with people in the course of doing their jobs, yes. Sorry, but anyone whose job includes the ability to detain and arrest citizens, go armed in public in places where they are the only ones who can do so (yes, NYC, Chicago, and most if not all of Hawaii, I'm talking to you), and even legally kill people who appear to pose a defensibly "legitimate" threat, should in fact have absolutely zero expectation of privacy. None. Period.

And they already are being recorded under such circumstances,in most departments. Most if not all police vehicles have onboard video recording capability that is required to be active whenever an incident is in progress -- it's activated by turning on the lights. Most PD's take an extremely dim view of turning off the lights during an incident to turn off the video, especially if someone gets shot or physically assaulted during the incident when there's no video of it, and very uncomfortable questions get asked and cops have been known to end up driving a desk or even losing their job in such circumstances.

Now that's not a level of scrutiny anyone likes, and cops are no exception -- and it's not like they haven't been known to bend the law pretty severely, including aggressive intimidation tactics, in cases where they really just don't want civilians recording what they're doing. But no, they don't have any expectation of privacy, nor do they have the right to confiscate property (phones or cameras) that isn't legally contraband. They do it, all too often, but it's not legal.

Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

No, because an office worker isn't out on the streets carrying a gun with the power to detain or arrest people, or otherwise empowered to do things that might have serious consequences to those around them if they decide to abuse their official authority. Now, if the boss wants to record what they're doing, it's entirely another matter if it's disclosed beforehand in such a way that they're being recorded with their knowledge. I might make exceptions for people in intel or national security jobs, whose decisions can have pretty far-reaching consequences with little or no accountability otherwise, but still, disclosure is a big part of those ethics.

But a cop on the street should expect to be photographed and/or videoed during incidents. They do it enough in the other direction (particularly NYPD TARU) that it's just pot calling the kettle black if they squawk about civilians doing it to them right back. Sorry, just no sympathy here.

Re:no expectation of privacy (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561076)

I used to install DVR systems in cop cars. One of the options was a pre-record, so when video starts recording it actually includes up to 3 minutes prior. When an agency decided to turn this option all the cops went crazy (literally screaming at people about it, including me) saying it was invasion of privacy. I brought up the question of expectation of privacy when on duty in a patrol car, and that just incited them further. Needless to say cops seem overly concerned with their own privacy and think even when on duty in city owned vehicles there is an expectation of privacy.

Re:no expectation of privacy (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561264)

none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand?

I think they understand perfectly well. They just don't give a damn.

Why is this country trying to radicalize nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560364)

We could all be in trouble if the constitution is aggressively defended from parents' basements everywhere.

vehicle cams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560372)

Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs

Re:vehicle cams (3, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560508)

Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they?

They have complete control over those videos (included if and when they get "lost"). They don't have control over phone cameras.

Re:vehicle cams (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560536)

I don't see how that could be the case considering that you can get officer's names from incident reports, arrest sheets, et cetera.

Re:vehicle cams (5, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560588)

Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs

Really, what they're afraid of is evidence of their wrongdoing being used against them.

Think the Rodney King incident [wikipedia.org] . The police were acquitted, though it seems to most that they should have been convicted.

Having their actions recorded by citizens takes some of the power away from the police and puts it in the hands of the citizens -- and police don't like giving up power. THAT is what they're afraid of.

They might claim that they're afraid of retaliation by gangs or something else, but that's not the real reason they don't like being recorded. They don't like being recorded because nobody likes being recorded when these recordings might be used against them later.

Re:vehicle cams (5, Interesting)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560658)

A better example is the Robert Dziekaski Taser incident [wikipedia.org] , where the cops tasered someone repeatidly for no reason and killed him. Lied about it. Confiscated the evidence to protect themselves. Only that video going public is what finally caused something to be done, because it so enraged the public that the government had no choice but to call an inquiry.

Re:vehicle cams (1)

Shompol (1690084) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561088)

That and to protect the children.

Secure in our papers.... (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560394)

Of course cell phones aren't covered by the 4th amendment. Only Post-it notes would be.

Re:Secure in our papers.... (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561144)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Someone should make an app... (1)

Atroxodisse (307053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560440)

...to record which apps and what data was recently accessed.

Re:Someone should make an app... (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560802)

So when you access that app, it logs that you accessed that app, which logs that that app accessed the app data, which logs that the app accessed the app data showing that it accessed the app data...

Assume all of it (1)

traindirector (1001483) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560850)

If those examining it have any special tools and you haven't taken extraordinary measures, you should assume all of it has been [slashdot.org] .

Re:Assume all of it (2)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561234)

That's why I use a BlackBerry. As soon as Apple or Google come out with a qwerty keyboard and equivalent security, I'll happily switch.

Ironic indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560450)

A public servant is extremely concerned about their privacy. Stop being a PUBLIC servant you moron!

Law enforcement still pandering to the lowest common denominator I see....

Oy (4, Informative)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560454)

First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority). And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.

Re:Oy (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560584)

"And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong?"

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore not A.

Re:Oy (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561070)

Modus Tollens at work. ^_^

Re:Oy (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560592)

All cops are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws. Anyone who enforces an unjust law is a bad person.

If cops want respect, they should first put their effort into making a government that is respectible. Only then can police be respected.

Re:Oy (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560746)

Agreed. If they joined before the unjust laws, they can always quit/retire, or leak information anonymously to the media. If they joined after, then they are truly horrible people.

Re:Oy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560916)

Ok- when was there ever in human history a land where a just set of laws existed? I didn't think so. All cops are therefore evil.

Re:Oy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561222)

Nazi Germany

Re:Oy (2)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560778)

Then all politicians are bad for making those laws, and all people are bad for voting in those politicians.

Re:Oy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560836)

By that logic, if you live in an unjust society, you're just as wrong, as you're culturally and socially supporting it, perpetuating the unjust elements. But, sociology is hard to figure out from your worldview entirely behind a computer screen, so I guess it's easier to just find a scapegoat, and them durn coppers and the gumm'nt are popular to hate these days, right?

Re:Oy (2)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560980)

If cops want respect, they should first put their effort into making a government that is respectible. Only then can police be respected.

Theoretically that extends to those paying their salaries... ie: taxes.

Unless you are actively working against it, you are tacitly supporting it every payday.

Re:Oy (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560604)

Hey, if the cops that aren't doing anything wrong don't want their asses exposed, then they need to stand up and fucking deal with the bad cops.

Until they begin doing that, however, the police themselves should be treated as if they were children.

Re:Oy (-1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560656)

Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops.

Why? Cops should have no expectation of privacy because they are public servants serving the public, and they actually are on-call 24/7, so of course they should expect no privacy in their homes, either.

Maybe this points out the dangers of vigilante hacking? We do it because we can and screw the consequences!

And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them.

No, in real life, a recording of the situation will be edited to paint the cops in a bad light. Nobody gains much from releasing a tape of them doing things the right way. There are considerable advantages to selective editing. Like, edit out the abusive drunk throwing a punch or two at the cop, but leave in the cop shoving him up against the car and cuffing him. Sell that to the media, or to the drunk's lawyers who have conveniently filed a police abuse case...

Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.

More like they are pretty confident that the people who don't like cops (criminals, for one) will have no problem editing any tape to put the cop in the worst possible light and try to make it look like he did something wrong.

Re:Oy (2)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560866)

"No, in real life, a recording of the situation will be edited to paint the cops in a bad light. Nobody gains much from releasing a tape of them doing things the right way. There are considerable advantages to selective editing. Like, edit out the abusive drunk throwing a punch or two at the cop, but leave in the cop shoving him up against the car and cuffing him. Sell that to the media, or to the drunk's lawyers who have conveniently filed a police abuse case..."

With all due respect, officer, this is 100% pure bullshit. I have never seen any citizen-made cop recordings released that had any cut-edits in them, ever. It is the cops who routinely lose and mangle the supposed mandatory recordings from squad cars, police HQ, etc. All the cop-on-tape stuff I've seen has been uploaded to YouTube as a public service, for free and at personal risk.

Example: The cops in Miami went around stomping a dozen people's cameras because the were worried they'd all take them home and make synchronized edits to make them look bad. Yeah, right. What you have here is simply evil propaganda trying to attack the one new tool that might provide transparency and oversight. With all due respect, sir.

Re:Oy (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561192)

With all due respect, officer,

I have no idea who you are talking to here. Certainly not me. But I do understand the qualifier "with all due respect", which is what people who have no respect for the other person say.

I have never seen any citizen-made cop recordings released that had any cut-edits in them, ever.

You don't watch the news much, then. Or you can't recognize cuts when you see them.

All the cop-on-tape stuff I've seen has been uploaded to YouTube as a public service, for free and at personal risk.

Yes, very risky, posting videos on YouTube. And I guess this answers the question of "don't watch the news much".

It's sad that you think that there is no possible way that any YouTube video could have been edited, even as simple an edit as to forget to post the first ten minutes of the cop/citizen interaction. You know, the part where the citizen is actively resisting arrest or doing something else violent, while the cop tries less physical means of dealing with it. You think that the interaction started with the citizen in a choke hold being handcuffed, because obviously the citizen could never have done anything to merit such treatment, and obviously the interaction began at that point in time and could not possibly have started before that.

What you have here is simply evil propaganda

Yes, I'd classify your comments that way. You are honest about your lack of respect for people whose opinion differs from you in this discussion, and honest about your participation. Refreshing.

Re:Oy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561016)

Ever heard of a time-stamp?

Re:Oy (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561258)

Ever heard of a time-stamp?

Yep. I also know how to create them when necessary containing any time you'd like in either LTC or VITC format (or burned into the image, if that's how you want it), and know that those time stamps are rarely shown on the news when the video is shown. I also doubt that too many camera phones create them in video they record, but even those that do can be "fixed" in post after editing.

Do you have a point?

Re:Oy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560764)

Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops.

If they're not doing anything wrong then what do they have to hide?

Re:Oy (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560814)

First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody.

That still seems problematic to me. If I am being arrested for, say, burglary, why should the cops need access to whatever personal data is on my phone? Unless a cop can show some sort of link between the phone and the alleged crime, it seems like a pretty invasive and inappropriate search to me. It's not like the cop is going to get HIV from my phone or anything.

Last I checked, even when you get arrested you have some rights (albeit fewer than a free man). So why would the default assumption be that you surrender the right to a private phone when arrested for a crime not involving the phone?

Re:Oy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560856)

Unless a cop can show some sort of link between the phone and the alleged crime...

...and get a judge to agree.

Re:Oy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560890)

First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority).

And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.

99% of cops give the other 1% a bad name.

My brother's a cop and he brings that attitude home with him. Barks orders at the kids like they're perps, everything has to be done his way or it's the highway. He's a dick, through and through.

Fundamental trust (5, Insightful)

U8MyData (1281010) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560462)

There is no trust anymore, which in my opinion is killing the fabric of the country. Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. The government looks at us like a vast field of something to be harvested from rather than a collection of individuals, families, and businesses that rely on them to create conditions of security, prosperity, and liberty. Instead we get "you little people", "don't bother me", and "Don't you know who I am?" attitudes among other things. I don't know how to take things back, but it take a paradigm shift I fear.

Re:Fundamental trust (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560548)

Vicious circle. US police used to be based on officers who knew a neighborhood well and had a lot of interaction with the citizens. The citizens would patrol and report anything.

However, times have changed. An arrest, even if it is for a drunk tank, or even mistaken identity can be a career ender. Why? A lot of big employers don't care if you are convicted. They only care about arrest for any reason, and if someone appears on NCIC's database, no job for them.

Both sides have fear, and it is justified. I wish I knew a way around this, other than perhaps to have more internships for LEO type of work so people know what police have to deal with on a daily basis.

Re:Fundamental trust (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560816)

Both sides have fear, and it is justified. I wish I knew a way around this, other than perhaps to have more internships for LEO type of work so people know what police have to deal with on a daily basis.

A way around it? Back when you ran Windows 95 and the system was clearly going into the crapper did you keep trying things hoping some silly tweak was going to just "fix it" or did you reach for the reset button?

Re:Fundamental trust (3, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560982)

I don't know what America you are referring to where people trusted each other more than they do now. I can't imagine that there was much trust between cops and blacks in the south before the late 80's, or between immigrant populations in the big cities circa the turn of the century, et cetera...

People are the same now as they have been for thousands of years - give people unchecked authority and corruption will reign. Recording the PUBLIC actions of police officers is a check on such abuse of authority. Imagine if you'd never seen the Rodney King beating. Would YOU have believed him?

Do as I say, not as I do. (2)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560466)

Because fuck you, that's why.

Re:Do as I say, not as I do. (1)

davidiii (1983894) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560496)

There's an app for that.

Re:Do as I say, not as I do. (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561308)

True story.

It's confirmed (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560482)

In Arizona Apple is Evil.

49 to go :)

Next Killer App (4, Interesting)

Jaqenn (996058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560524)

I say the next killer app is one that streams what you're recording to offsite storage so that it can't be confiscated by smashing your phone/camera. If there's not enough bandwidth it can scale down to sending keyframes and low quality audio and pad out the rest of the video when you stop recording.

Re:Next Killer App (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560620)

Qik [qik.com]

Re:Next Killer App (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560634)

Did you RTFA... that is exactly what scares these cops.
 
 

Specifically the document warns that an app called Cop Recorder can be activated while the phone is in a suspect's pocket to record what happens during an arrest, then upload the audio to a network server beyond the officer's reach.

Re:Next Killer App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560642)

already exists.
http://qik.com/

Re:Next Killer App (4, Funny)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560644)

If only they mentioned such an app in TFA.

Oh wait.

Re:Next Killer App (1)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560696)

Whether it's next, or still a few apps down the road, it is clear that whatever "policy" is being advocated in the docs outed by LulzSec is going to be rather meaningless very, very soon, as the technology that you're describing (inevitably) becomes available.

The police need to come to grips with the fact of this kind of "surveillance" and institute policies that address the misbehavior of officers (or rather calls for proper procedures) rather than wasting time confiscating iphones.

Re:Next Killer App (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560806)

JustinTV....
I think it records up to ten minutes or more of action when you are live streaming from your phone, so you can look back at the footage later.

I can't think of any other better alternatives or more popular.

I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons... (5, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560530)

...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?

The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.

Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560648)

an argument that is made is that a video camera could affect the behavior of witnesses they are interviewing.

which begs the question: why are you interviewing sensitive witnesses in PUBLIC?

SOP:being taken into custody is very disorienting (2)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560754)

The sooner they can get you talking, the sooner you might divulge something they can use. Even if they can't use it, they can ask you the same question again later and if your answer is not exactly the same then your story changed. Once your version can be called into question because
you are changing your story (lying), they win.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560666)

Try the reverse and see if it changes your opinion:

...what legitimate reasons do the public have for avoiding being recorded [in public locations]?

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560790)

Wow, I never thought of it. Trying the reverse! Amazing. All dogs are mammals. True, I think... Let's try the reverse. All mammals are dogs. No, that's not right. Guess the first one was wrong as well. My God you've opened my eyes, thank you so much.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561300)

OMG. I never thought of it. Your amazing argument has illuminated all the possible aspects of conversation that could have occurred! Of course!! Mammals are dogs! Why didn't I think of this before!?

You should be ashamed of your comment, it adds nothing to the discussion.

The argument should be that all public locations are free to be recorded. Cops should be allowed to record, businesses should be allowed to record, and the public should be allowed to record. Equal rights to public space for all.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560852)

The public doesn't have the power the cops have. The public doesn't have a given duty to strip others of their rights - which, incidentally, is largely done when people without said authority do so. So, the public is supposed to be leaving everyone else to their own business, but an on duty cop is supposed to be keeping a small segment of the public from interfering with the lives of the other, larger portion of the public.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560898)

I don't know why a police officer is ever allowed to NOT be recorded while on duty. Judges don't get to hide what they are doing and neither should police officers. These recordings should be kept by someone unaffiliated with the police, and in particular absolutely should never under any circumstance be kept by the police themselves. The equipment should be robust and if it is malfunctioning for any reason that should be cause for an investigation (possibly brief in many cases) into the conduct of the police officer even in the absence of any complaints or other indications of a problem. An officer or department with an unlikely number of malfunctions should receive special attention to discover the technical or non-technical reason for it. These recordings should be preserved indefinitely. Obviously the recordings should be confidential and should not ever be e.g. connected to the internet. The public don't really need to know what Joe and Bob were discussing about their lives while waiting for something to happen.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560920)

The only counter to all this really is that lawyers can easily make even the most routine arrest look like abuse or file for a dismissal of charges based on the idea that the cop didn't properly follow procedure. Much like the average driver is breaking the law in some respect the moment he pulls out of the drive, the average cop isn't always going to follow the strictest form of the law to get his job done and it's not because he's a bad cop. It's because the law is so complicated and full of minutia that it's easy to get a case thrown out on a technicality. Not that minutia is bad but sometimes it serves no good purpose. Specially if it hinders good cops from capturing truly bad people.

So once again, partly blame the lawyers and law makers on this one.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (1)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561014)

Why? Because every armchair quarterback with 20/20 hind-site will be on you like a pack of flies. Sure we all want to bust the Rodney King beaters, but who can justify every working moment at their jobs when the whole world gets to critique? it degenerates to "OMG! He just sat 4 8 hrs radaring speeders....go catch some real crims!!"

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561268)

Yeah, but they are ever so happy to apply the law down the last detail and critique everything we do. But we're being "nitpicky" by examining what they do with half as much detail.

That right there is how they admit it. By watching their actions you can see the thought process.

"Oh well no one thinks we should arrest cops for every little single detail when detaining suspects. They are good men performing good work."

But Mr. Black going about his day can't possibly be an innocent man going about. Let's pull out the big magnifying glass and microscope and search his phone and pat him down.

But we're crazy if cops are simply recorded doing public work under the public's dollar. Yeah.... that's "nitpicky" for sure.

FUCKING PIGS

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (1)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561286)

I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...

Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561046)

Ive heard things like "obstruction of justice" getting thrown around - without any further explanation

Re:I'm not anti-police but what legitimate reasons (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561096)

Context, I've seen a million and one videos of a cops beating on some guy, but I very rarely see videos that shows the precursor.

Network Storage? (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560562)

Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.

Re:Network Storage? (2)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560762)

Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.

Isn't Apple working on some technology to allow movie theaters to remotely disable recording on any iPhone that happens to be in the theater? Yeah. "Movie theaters," that's who they're developing it for. Sure...

Re:Network Storage? (1)

sarhjinian (94086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560938)

Qik can sorta-kinda do this. Gandhicam definitely can, and I'd like to see it ported to iOS.

Re:Network Storage? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561132)

Ghandicam, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. That almost makes a smart phone an appealing item.

Even More Interesting... (4, Interesting)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560598)

...is the document specifically instructing officers, that when they take an iPhone, for any reason, to stick it into a Faraday bag.

The document specifically mentions the "Where's My iPhone" app, which can not only locate the phone, but remotely wipe the phone.

Thereby making it useless for any kind of investigation. And because everything is backed up to iTunes, the owner can just re-sync their phone as soon as they get it back.

Here's an excerpt from the faraday-bags.com website, emphasis mine...

Our line of Black Hole Faraday Bags have been designed to aid police, military, and consultants in the collection, preservation, transport, and analysis of wireless evidence. Wireless devices such as cell phones, GPS, netbooks, bluetooth devices, laptops, etc. are shielded from cellular, WiFi, bluetooth and radio signals when inside of our faraday bags.

Our newest Black Hole bag with a shielded USB 2.0 connection not only offers shielding for seizure and transport but analysis as well. In the past, shielded analysis has been limited to large and expensive enclosures, making shielded analysis in the field nearly impossible. Our Black Hole Data Bag is a truly unique and revolutionary product built to the demands of our customers.

So even if it's inside the bag, they'll be able to slurp it without you or your friends/family being able to wipe it.

Re:Even More Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36560844)

That's pretty clever actually. I wonder about short-range magnetic communication. B Fields are much much harder to shield than E fields.

Re:Even More Interesting... (4, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560882)

Next killer app: One that wipes your data if your phone isn't able to check in for a certain amount of time, or if it's connected via USB when there is no service available. True, most people wouldn't want that as they could accidentally lose something, but for people who legitimately have reason to fear police confiscation of their phone, it could be worth the risk.

Being in public is NOT private (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560636)

If you are in public where you have a right to be, then whoever else is there with you has no privacy. You can video tape cops if you want to goto the trouble. If they're complaining about it, then they need to find a new job or do theirs right.

Lulz (1)

hviniciusg (1481907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560640)

ITFS(in the freaking subject)

arizona is home of... (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36560810)

before you become excitedly aware of the stupidity in arizona realize first that arizona is the home of...

open carry gun laws, for any of the numerous allowable gun types including assault rifles
recently, no more permits to conceal a weapon (careful when you google this, you will probably find outdated info [azcentral.com] )
legalized fully-automatic assault rifles for weapons made before 1986 (at least you have to register these!)
driver licenses that don't expire for 36 years, after which a mail-in renewal (read: no new testing) will have you looking 16 again at 52 yrs young
renegade sheriff Arpaio who feels like he is immune to federal investigation
average summer heat waves of 110 F (think what this does to your brain and your car, and both at the same time)
highest rate of methamphetamine use in the country

... and of cultural significance, no ports of entry via sea

hopefully, knowing what is par for the arizona course helps put the article's issue into perspective.

Great Job Lulzsec! (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36561208)

Glad they dropped the dox on this situation. Perfect example of hypocrisy amongst the swine. There are many new video recording apps for iphone/ipod touch that record video to a remote server in real time so if the pigs do confiscate the phone your videos will be untouchable.

When I was younger... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36561252)

I used to be afraid of the dark.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>