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!

French Court Orders ISP To Block Police Misconduct Website

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-look-at-that dept.

Censorship 178

Freddybear writes "A French court has ordered ISPs to block access to Copwatch Nord Paris I-D-F, a website designed to allow civilians to post videos of alleged police misconduct. French police unions applauded the decision. Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'"

cancel ×

178 comments

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

French justice? (5, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771002)

this site being a threat to the integrity of the police

I would say that something else, and not a Web site, is a threat to the integrity of the police.

Words matter (5, Insightful)

femto (459605) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771042)

It's bad for the integrity of policing. Good for the integrity of the police.

Re:Words matter (5, Informative)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771086)

The site wasn't really for the purpose the summary and article make it sound like. It mainly collected personal information, addresses and even social networking accounts of police officers. Europe takes privacy of private persons much more seriously than US, and the information was even used for making threats.

The police had said they were particularly concerned about portions of the site showing identifiable photos of police officers, along with personal data â" including some cases in which officers are said to express far-right sympathies on social networks. The initial complaint against the site was filed by a Paris police officer who said he had received a bullet in his mailbox after his picture had appeared on the site. He was joined by other officers.

I'm all for making police actions more transparent, but single police officers should have some privacy regarding their personal life too.

Re:Words matter (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771192)

And why were policemen exposed on this webpage? Just for being policemen?

Re:Words matter (5, Interesting)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771222)

My experience, from Sweden, is that some people are dicks. That's about it.

We have a couple of local cops who are hated by lots of people in their twenties for reasons that seem to mostly revolve around those particular cops being part of the local police department's "youth group" that focuses both on solving crimes committed by teenagers but also keeping an eye on what goes on in local parks in the summer and such things. I know that for a while there was a website that posted a bunch of personal information about one of them.

So basically, some people feel that they are justified in being dicks if the cops ruin their (illegal) fun. I myself have met these particular police officers a few times late at night, the worst that I've ever been subjected to was a "please don't drink beer in public south of that bridge, local ordinances say you can't drink in public south of there"...

Re:Words matter (0)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771284)

My experience, from Sweden, is that some people are dicks. That's about it.

We have a couple of local cops who are hated by lots of people in their twenties for reasons that seem to mostly revolve around those particular cops being part of the local police department's "youth group" that focuses both on solving crimes committed by teenagers but also keeping an eye on what goes on in local parks in the summer and such things. I know that for a while there was a website that posted a bunch of personal information about one of them.

So basically, some people feel that they are justified in being dicks if the cops ruin their (illegal) fun. I myself have met these particular police officers a few times late at night, the worst that I've ever been subjected to was a "please don't drink beer in public south of that bridge, local ordinances say you can't drink in public south of there"...

Man... I always thought that you CAN'T drink any booze in public in Sweden,...it is limited to only "south" direction of places? how about public north of that bridge?About people being dicks, you're right. Police is for ENFORCING law, thats their job, some people bake bread, others are lawyers and others just don't care and break the rules. And that is where police come in.

Re:Words matter (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771316)

Man... I always thought that you CAN'T drink any booze in public in Sweden,...it is limited to only "south" direction of places? how about public north of that bridge?

Well, in this particular city there's also a street in the southern part of the city that you can't drink north of. There's a more or less rectangular area that covers the most central parts of the city where you can't drink in public, outside of that area it's ok. The particular bridge I mentioned happens to be on the northern edge of a park so a lot of people end up getting told to go north of the bridge if they want to drink. And apparently a lot of people somehow use this as a justification for thinking the police are assholes for enforcing this (even though technically anyone caught drinking within this area should be fined).

Re:Words matter (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771372)

To be honest, I thought you missed some part, but now I get the idea :) Thanks for explanation! And give me a tip which bridge it is, TIA.

and yet they let Hitler walk in (1, Funny)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771982)

How many cops arrested hitler when he rolled in to France?

None.

Useless cops. Wouldnt sacrifice their life for their country when an obvious law breaking evil MOFO rides into town.

Re:and yet they let Hitler walk in (1)

Lockyy (2486084) | more than 2 years ago | (#37772262)

I think at that point we were well past the point of the leaders of countries rolling into battle along side the foot soldiers. I think everyone realized the stupidity of that tactic way before ww2...

Re:Words matter (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771350)

so.. they're in a group that actively engages youth, "i'm police officer balbablab you can come to talk me about blablabal", in cases like that the expection of privacy really goes out of the window, the smaller the city the more it goes out of the window(and the more local power they have).

but if there's _any_ group of persons who should expect less privacy than the rest, it should be the cops and court system officials. why? because they decide about the privacy of the rest and have special rights about invading the privacy of others. the cops don't need to even trump up charges in most of europe to do a house search - private parties should at least be able to keep tabs on who does those searches. because that's the only way to know when they consistently act different than what the local parliaments law deciding bodies want them to.

Re:Words matter (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771620)

but if there's _any_ group of persons who should expect less privacy than the rest, it should be the cops and court system officials.

I don't think there should be any expectation of privacy for an officer on duty, anything you do wearing the uniform should be up for scrutiny. But that is their day job, when they take off the uniform and go home I think they should have the same protections as everyone else. In fact, it's very few other occupations that so often lead to harassment, vandalization or outright threats against yourself or our family. By enforcing the law you're attracting the anger of people that have very little problem breaking the law.

I'm not talking primarily about the big stuff, like when the mafia or drug lords go to more or less outright war against the police, judges and juries. But more like "There's lives the asshole who caught me shoplifting, let's egg his car and stab the tires" kind of thing. I suppose in a small town everybody would know anyway, but in the city it wouldn't normally be that easy. Exposing their private lives is far more likely to give people the means for intimidation to prevent them doing their jobs or leave the force than to keep them honest.

I mean if you were doing any serious coverup for somebody, would you have them listed as your friend on a social networking site? It'd be a pretty blatant conflict of interest, if anything you'd try to it indirectly so your name doesn't come up. And your home address, yeah uh huh so check that you're not covering for your neighbors right? Oh please, that's got almost zero legitimate uses and plenty bad ones. It's far more likely to be used in a "we know where you live and everybody you care about" kind of way.

Re:Words matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771488)

And sometimes those dicks have badges. Sometimes the badges turn them into dicks. What is your point?

Re:Words matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37772168)

Being a 'bad cop' does not revoke your right to privacy, just like being a child pornographer, a slashdot reader or a video gamer does not.

Re:Words matter (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771206)

I'm all for making police actions more transparent, but single police officers should have some privacy regarding their personal life too.

The French must have a different idea of what it means to be a public servant than we do.
How is the contesnts of this website any different than someone compiling the same information and releasing it in print?

Re:Words matter (5, Informative)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771324)

"How is the contesnts of this website any different than someone compiling the same information and releasing it in print?"

They are not. That's why it would be prosecuted in any case under European privacy laws.

Re:Words matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771548)

Agreed - remember the Stanford Prison Experiment - in a social context, if you expect something to be in a personality it will exhibit itself - no question why this is over hyped garbage - it's manipulation by the media.

Re:Words matter (1)

Adhemar (679794) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771676)

It’s perfectly possible that the website disclosed personal information, addresses, social network details and political affiliations of the police officers. And it’s understandable that the police say they are particularly concerned about those portions. I haven’t seen the site.

But I have read the judgment. And the justification of the website ban does not mention police officer’s personal information as a reason for the ban. Instead, the Court explains that it objects to certain language on the website, and the Court gives a few examples:

Nous n’hésiterons pas à user de termes sévères à l’égard de la Police et de la Gendarmerie, car nous considérons ces institutions comme la fosse commune de l’humanité, le charnier de l’évolution, la mise à mort quotidienne de la déontologie et de l’éthique. Nous serons sans equivoque
“We will not hesitate to use harsh terms down on Police and Gendarmerie, because we consider these institutions as the common grave of mankind, the mass grave of evolution, killing daily Conduct and ethics. We will be clear”

Un laboratoire ou CRS [compagnie républicaine de sécurité] et PAF [police aux frontières] s’entraînent à chasser le migrant, à l’humilier, à le torturer psychologiquement. Calais possède sans doute la PAF la plus violente de France
“A laboratory or Republic’s Security Company and the Border Police are trained in hunting downs migrants, in humiliating, in torturing them psychologically. [The town of] Calais has probably the most violent border police of France”

The Court considers that such language falls under the description

toute expression outrageante, termes de mépris ou invective qui ne renferme l’imputation d’aucun fait
“any offensive expression, contemptuous term or invective [violent denunciation] that does not reflect the imputation [attribution of a fault] of any fact”

with respect to the police, and is as such forbidden under a legal exception to the free speech/free press principle.

Re:Words matter (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771876)

I understand why the photos has to be removed or the faces in them blurred out, but what's the problem with posting data THEY made publicly available on Facebook?

Re:Words matter (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771098)

Why only show law enforcement goofs, sometimes the bad guys do some pretty stupid stuff also.

Expectations (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771262)

Why only show law enforcement goofs, sometimes the bad guys do some pretty stupid stuff also.

You typically expect the bad guys to do stupid things - usually what they are getting arrested for! Less so with the police.

Re:French justice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771128)

The police are a threat to the integrity of the police.

Oh sure. its only a few bad cops who ruin their image for them all. but still. i don't recall any of those supposedly 'good' cops busting their buddies lately for any of the crap they pull. and worst comes to worst... they just get a paid vacation. When was the last time you saw a cop get sent to jail like us regular people.

That's right. Never.

Re:French justice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771770)

Please, read the facts [slashdot.org] .

Re:French justice? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37772298)

Thats the crux right there. We have all seen incidents where 5 officers are standing around while 2 of them beat someone to death. When was the last time we saw a cop abusing his authority and being summarily arrested by the other officers on scene?

Re:French justice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771130)

Yeah police brutality, but you can't hope to stop that just limit the coverage.

Time to eat some cake... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771006)

Le nom.

Wrong thing to do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771016)

Another example of the government over stepping it's bounds.

Re:Wrong thing to do. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771194)

What did you expect from li'l Napoleon and his regime?

FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integrity" (2, Informative)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771020)

"this site being a threat to the integrity of the police..."
No, I think the actions of the police threaten their own integrity. A case of "you can't handle the truth...".

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771054)

Doesn't that make the statement correct then?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (4, Informative)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771106)

They don't have a trouble if someone documents polices wrongful actions. They have a trouble with site that collects and lists police officers private home addresses, which lead them to receive threats via mail. The site also tried to show if police officers personal political opinion is right or left.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771296)

Sounds completely valid to me. Governments collect data on their citizens. Is it not also valid for their citizens to collect data on the government? Especially the police, which is prone to corruption and misuse of power? To not allow oversight is only acknowledging that there are problems which politicians will refuse to solve. Making it blatant by blacklisting the source of some oversight should only make the problem more obvious, so hopefully more sites will be started to provide the same service.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771430)

There is an obvious balance between the right of freedom of expression and on the other side a right to a private life, and both sides could probably make a Human Rights case. The European Convention on Human Rights is a set of balances; whilst a site which documented police abuse of power would probably be protected by the ECHR, a site which crossed the line by publishing private addresses of police with a view to harassing or threatening them would not be protected.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (4, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771492)

You expect people to take your support of people posting police officers personal information on a website seriously, when you you're not only posting on a forum that doesn't post your personal details but doing so using an optional feature to be 'anonymous'? Good luck with that.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771622)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.

"If you were in X situation, you'd change your mind!" That can be used for just about anything.

Or you could be saying that since he has not had his private information exposed here, that means that his criticisms and opinions are invalid (or that you think it is). But, since this is about police, I still don't see what his situation has to do with anything. No matter what, it would likely change nothing.

Unless I misunderstood you, of course.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37772028)

I'm not NA1K, but I agree.

Everyone must have a right to privacy, police officer included.
Also, the purpose of collecting and publishing police officer personal information is to harass them, and so, as public servant they must be protected.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.

If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37772144)

If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?

Attaching importance to anonymity is not the same thing as forcing others (in this case, the government) to ensure that you remain anonymous.

Second of all, it's certainly possible to allow some people to have privacy whilst denying it to others. You might call it unfair, but it's likely possible for someone to believe that that is how it should be done.

I just don't think that "you posted anonymously; therefore, your criticisms are dismissed" is a good argument.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771714)

[ posting names and addresses of police officers ] Sounds completely valid to me.

says the Anonymous Coward.

Re:FTFA - "this site being a threat to the integri (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771524)

Instead of using the personal names, addresses etc. of the listed police officers, use badge numbers or similar. That way you avoid getting too personal while still being able to accurately identify each officer. Providing personal info is getting too close in a very unconstructive way, a way that just asks for morons to send bullets in the mail and similar.

Now document every accusation. If you want to accuse a certain officer of brutality or other misconduct, document it using video or similar. Then it can and must be taken seriously.

The purpose of the site must be to make itself obsolete.i.e. to have each and ever police officer behave in a way that's beyond reproach whenever they're doing their job. "Everything that's worth doing is worth doing right" - That should apply to all law enforcement officers around the world. There's never any reason to cross that line. If you can't control your actions, you don't belong in the police - or at least not in any public part of the police. There's always the desk jobs...

I'm not kidding. Any law enforcement officer that abuses power in any way, shape or form must be prosecuted and if convicted summarily fired without benefits in addition to any punishment that's part of the conviction. Only that way can the law enforcement community regain respect in the community which includes their 'clients'.

Privacy (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771036)

This site was giving full names and adresses of Police officers, this is why it was closed.

wrong wrong wrong (2)

worldthinker (536300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771040)

What is a threat to the integrity of the police IS the misconduct that has been documented by citizens. The antidote is sunshine in the form of accountability provided by these documents.

Re:wrong wrong wrong (1)

symes (835608) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771580)

The problem here is that a video does not neccessarily accurately document misconduct. Classic example might be police arresting a violent out of control offender who resists. The video would probably not capture the offense, just the end point where officers are physically restraining the perpetrator. It is not difficult to edit some footage to make it look like the police were behaving unreasonably. Should the full facts be known casual observers might come to an entirely different conclusion. Instead they'll get edited footage from someone who might have an undeclared agenda. Add in the sites promulgation of officers personal information and you have a volatile mix. The truth is that there are some pretty nasty people out there who may or may not be carrying a weapon and the only option for police is physical restraint.

French Copwatch != US Copwatch (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771048)

While I am no fan of censorship at all, the issue here is that this fFrench version of Copwatch was not so much about showing police abuse than collecting some cops personnal data. In some areas of France, being a cop is all the reason you need for being assaulted, and when a website lists your name and address... not good.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (1)

cusco (717999) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771176)

If so, there is probably a reason. People don't normally assault guys known to carry guns without a damn good reason.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771494)

Yes, there is almost definitely a reason, but those reasons may (I'm not French, so I don't know) normally be more related to some gangsta-type being afraid of having his crooked little operation uncovered, or revenge for arresting someone's buddy, rather than a vigilante "fixing" bent cops (which is what you seem to be implying). I'm all for uncovering crime commited by the police, but I don't see how publishing their private addresses helps with that.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771534)

Not really.

Some people (organized crime) don't need a reason.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771574)

You are so naive.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771578)

Oh they have one: they read "Mein Korampf" and learned it was their duty to assault those that haven't.

Re:French Copwatch != US Copwatch (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771968)

Police get a lot of flack just for being police; on top of that they deal with a lot of drunkards and junkies, as well as violent offenders in the course of their normal duties.

People don't normally assault other people - regardless of whether the other person is carrying a gun or not - but the Police spend a lot of time dealing with people that you or I wouldn't consider 'normal'. And those people do hold grudges.

If you're not doing anything wrong (3, Insightful)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771058)

then you have nothing to be worried about. That's the usual post-9/11 line of thought, yet?

Re:If you're not doing anything wrong (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#37772082)

While I agree with you that everyone deserves privacy, you also have to remember that a lot of cops work undercover and having their photos posted on a website with their name/address/etc puts them and their families in serious danger.

Yeah! (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771072)

'Cause the police can't maintain their integrity if they're not allowed to beat someone up now and then.

Outrageous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771078)

How can the french people stand for this? I'd be ready to riot.

Re:Outrageous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771110)

The french have a long and consistent history of being fucking pussies who don't stand up for themselves.

Re:Outrageous (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771196)

Well, it takes a while for them to get stirred, but when they are ... losing your head isn't just a figure of speech then.

Re:Outrageous (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771260)

The french have a long and consistent history of being fucking pussies who don't stand up for themselves.

No, the French seem willing to riot at the drop of a hat. Maybe you should watch some international news not Fox.

Re:Outrageous (1)

Stephan Schulz (948) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771582)

The french have a long and consistent history of being fucking pussies who don't stand up for themselves.

Lafayette [wikipedia.org] called and said that you can say that again when you ever fought a modern war [wikipedia.org] in which 70% of a generation became casualties, with about a quarter of these dead and another permanently maimed.

Re:Outrageous (3, Informative)

caius112 (1385067) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771162)

Like many other people pointed it out, the site wasn't simply a collection of misconduct videos. It collected full names, addresses, telephone numbers, and facebook accounts of police officers that visitors then actually used to harass these said officers. I think the judge is fully justified in shutting it down, it probably broke quite a few privacy laws.

Stupid precedent (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771090)

The one's that damage the reputation of the police are the bad cops that don't deserve the uniform. As a unionized public servant I get pissed off when one of my coworkers mistreat citizens and we can't be even 10% as armful as a police officer. The union should welcome proof of officers misconduct since that bad officers make people mistrust the whole police force and makes everyone's job harder. Maybe they want worst riots in Paris than the ones in London in the near future to have something to brag about.

Poor understanding of English (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771100)

Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'

integrity /integrit/
Noun: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English. A site that shines light onto questionable behaviors promotes integrity, as you should be acting in private in such a way that you can defend your actions if they were to ever become public. It's an intrinsic quality. This is only a threat in newspeak, or if you think perception is reality.

I guess that statement might make sense if he were talking about the cohesion of the police, but that would imply far greater dissent within their ranks concerning what behaviors have been revealed...

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771142)

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English.

Or rather, there is a problem with this English translation of something said in French.

The English word integrity is almost always used with the definition you gave. Its cognates in the Romance languages have several other uses, based on the meaning of "wholeness", or "staying in one piece". The English word entire is another cognate with a related meaning.

Besides translation, we have 2 problems here:

1. Cops who abuse their power are asshats.
2. People who violate the personal privacy of cops (whether for the lulz or vigilante justice) are also asshats.

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771156)

Jean-Claude Delage, secretary general of the APN, said that '[t]he judges have analyzed the situation perfectly—this site being a threat to the integrity of the police — and made the right decision.'

integrity /integrit/ Noun: The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English. A site that shines light onto questionable behaviors promotes integrity, as you should be acting in private in such a way that you can defend your actions if they were to ever become public. It's an intrinsic quality. This is only a threat in newspeak, or if you think perception is reality. I guess that statement might make sense if he were talking about the cohesion of the police, but that would imply far greater dissent within their ranks concerning what behaviors have been revealed...

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary [reference.com] :
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771178)

Just to clarify my point. I didn't mean to say that shutting down the website *actually* preserved the integrity of the French Police. I meant to say that, in this case, it's fairly clear that the meaning of integrity was more in line with:
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:
rather than:
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

As to whether or not the court decision was correct, it appears that there was more than just video of cops doing nasty and illegal things. Whether that more was actually acceptable grounds for limiting speech, I don't know. I don't have all the facts. I know that's never stopped anyone on here, but I'm going to play this one a little conservatively.

Have a nice day

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771238)

Argh, quit being reasonable! I was about to make fun of you for not noticing I'd addressed that possibility in my original post that you quoted, even putting it in italics for emphasis.

Re:Poor understanding of English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771212)

You are the one with the poor grasp of English. From the dictionary [reference.com] :
integrity [in-teg-ri-tee] Show IPA
noun
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.

And you need to learn to use a dictionary. It's not a multiple choice test with only one right answer, they are all valid definitions:

1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2.
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3.
a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.

In any case, this was translated from a Foreign language so the word "integrity" was chosen by the translator. It's possible the word which should have been used was "safety", since the website was less about exposing police abuses and more about simply publishing private information about individual officers. While technically speaking "integrity" would also fulfill this definition, that's not how we commonly use it in everyday practice.

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771158)

Considering that Delage's statement was probably translated from the original French, it could well be that it was integrity in the sense of being whole and unbroken, i.e., unharmed. In other words, he may have meant physical security and safety of individual officers and their families.

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771640)

It seems that they have a bit of a problem with their English.

No, the article has a problem with it's translation from the original French to English:

The original says:

Les magistrats ont parfaitement analysé la situation -ce site portant atteinte à l’intégrité des policiers

He said "integrity (in the sense of wholeness, i.e. life and limb) of policemen" not "integrity of the police force".

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

pairo (519657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771864)

How can you tell which of the two meanings they used? From what I see on http://dictionary.reverso.net/french-english/atteinte [reverso.net] , it's more likely to be used with the figurative sense of intégrité.

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771910)

Context.

It's the "des policers" - "of policemen" that's the clue.

(Also the police union doesn't give a fuck about the institution of the police, that's not their job. They care about cops.)

Re:Poor understanding of English (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771934)

(Also, he's a cop. Cops talk funny).

If there is anything to be learned from this site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771136)

it's don't trust anyone with a crewcut.

Time to start mirroring it (1)

Saul Bash (1437909) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771146)

It's like they've never heard of the Streisand Effect.

A good eye-opener (1, Insightful)

rapidreload (2476516) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771148)

As an Australian citizen, I've been aware of how fucked our Governement is with regards to our rights. But I've always kept in my mind that the USA are also pretty fucked as well (they might have a Constitution, but due process seems to be getting shafted as time goes on). So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things). But hey, the Europeans are smart cookies surely? Well, Italy is clearly fucked as well (seriously corrupt Government, not much to redeem there). And now we have another example of how the French are clearly fucked like everyone else.

There's basically nowhere in the world anymore when I can think that it's citizens aren't being fucked by their Government. Possible some Scandinavian countries, but it's only a matter of time. It's a good eye-opener to anyone who thinks life is better somewhere else - no, it's not. You're getting buttfucked no matter where you go.

No wonder people don't know what to do anymore. Our record levels of depression didn't just come out of thin air.

Re:A good eye-opener (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771182)

So then I look at the Brits, and they're fucked as well (too many cameras, among other things).

The problem in Britain is that all of the cameras are Government Cameras. Try taking pictures of almost anything anymore out in public with your own camera where there is no expectation of privacy and the law explicitly permits photography and count how long it takes Inspector Plod to come along and seize your camera anyway you little terrorist.

Re:A good eye-opener (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37772046)

Except that's wrong.
The Police will stop you from recording in public if they believe that the person you're recording hasn't given permission, but otherwise they'll ignore you. They've got bigger things to worry about, and don't have the manpower to waste on some twat with a camera.

The vast majority of the cameras here in the UK are PRIVATELY owned. The law allows business premises to install CCTV as long as they register with the Information Commissioners office and put up signs in the window to let people know they have it. Because there's very little cost involved, most chain retailers adopt CCTV to help their civil recovery cases.
Having worked with some of these systems, I can tell you they're almost always offline, and most of the time they're not actually monitored. The quality is pretty awful to boot.
If (when) the retailer finds discarded packaging hidden in a corner of the store or under a shelf, they'll normally work backwards through the footage of the nearest camera to see if they can spot the person who dumped that packaging. If they can, they'll then keep stepping backwards to build up a picture of when that person entered the store, the route they took, and the items they took. The footage of that person then gets burned off and submitted as evidence to the police - who then do sod all with it from my experience.
Shoplifters are normally in the store for less than 3 minutes. They come in when it's busy, go straight for high ticket items that are easily concealed, cut them out of the packaging somewhere out of the line of sight of the staff, and walk back out again with the items, but without the packaging. The store only submits the footage relevant to the incident, and the CCTV system starts recording over older footage after about a month. The DPA doesn't allow the retailers to keep footage for longer than it's needed, so the only footage that ever gets burned off is the footage related to shoplifting events, and the odd fist fight.

The only time you really see Government owned cameras is Westminster, and on the top of traffic lights outside schools (well known accident blackspots). The Highways Agency has about a thousand under motorway bridges so that they can build traffic reports without having to fly helicopters, but they're useless for anything else.

Re:A good eye-opener (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771440)

If you want somewhere where government isn't screwing its citizens, look at places with little to no government.

Re:A good eye-opener (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771506)

And in those places, like good libertarian utopias, the violent gang leaders are screwing the citizens without enough government power to stop them (or conversely, the gangs take over the government then screw the citizens). Little government is always worse, and yet we have multiple parties claiming that's what they want (while most of those are also voting to raise spending - but not taxes, nope, taxes make big government, spending doesn't).

The US politics is broken beyond repair.

Censorship doesn't work (1)

tokencode (1952944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771200)

Regardless of how distasteful it is to release that information, trying to censor it will only further publicize the fact that the information exists. The french went about the problem completely wrong. They should have left the information out there and start tracking down prosecuting those who tried to use it in a negative way. I think it is simliar to insutrctions on making a bomb. It's all well and good until you try to do something illegal with the information.

To: the government of France (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771208)

To: the government of France. The ISP's may not say it, so I will. PISS OFF.

Re:To: the government of France (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771632)

<quote>To: the government of France></quote>

It's a court's decision, not the government. Based on privacy laws, those come from the parliament.

Why the misleading summary? (5, Insightful)

jezwel (2451108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771220)

How do we tag a summary as misleading? Seems that entire premise behind why the site was blocked (providing police officer information including address and political affiliation) was dumped to promulgate 'videos of police brutality'.

It was inevitable this would generate a flame session, so now I'm wondering what the purpose of that was - especially in consideration that a lot of users can disable advertising?

Re:Why the misleading summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771500)

How do we tag a summary as misleading?

I've been coming here for 6 years to this site, we thrive on bullshit.

You must be new here.

Re:Why the misleading summary? (1)

N1AK (864906) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771510)

Over the last 3-6 months there has been an increase in completely false headlines and summaries on Slashdot. I'm sure there have always been some but it's getting frustrating. I've kept visiting Slashdot because I'm interested in the subjct areas it covers, however when it keeps covering them in such a way that I can't trust anything I read to be accurate a lot of that value is gone.

Re:Why the misleading summary? (1)

velin (1752390) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771882)

What is this 'advertising' of which you speak?

ECHR will probably block this... (1)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771272)

As it seems - on the surface (this *is* slashdot :) - that this violates some of the basic human rights, and those are mainly covered by the ECHR in Europe (www.echr.coe.int). These kind of law suits in front of "lower" judges tend to be based on a limited set of facts (from what I can see in similar cases), and do not take into account the full extent of the law that protects these organizations - such as the European law. Takes a while though... And... IANAL -YMMV

Police integrity is police integrity ... (3, Informative)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771294)

I'm sorry, but I'm a teacher who has to put up with all sorts of crap to prove my integrity. So when it comes down to people who have even more power and even more rights, I believe that they should be held more accountable.

So fuck your unions. Mine has agreed to semi independent reviews. Yours should too. I can still be hung by my balls over baseless accussations (that you claim to investigate), so you should too. When you are willing to find innocence (or guilt) of my members, I will listen to your whinng. Until then, you're just a baseless bunch of bureaucrats.

Re:Police integrity is police integrity ... (1)

cheaphomemadeacid (881971) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771466)

hmm seems like they only want the power, not the responsibility...

Re:Police integrity is police integrity ... (0)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771688)

So you're whining that since your union is too crap to protect you other people's unions should fold too?

You're also being stupid enough to believe a crappy mistranslation from French to English. The actual union complaint was about the safety of police officers not the "integrity of the police force". Does your union not take action to protect your safety?

French here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771328)

Bad reporting, this website was not about reporting misconduct but identifying cops by pictures and possibly posting their personal details.

Privacy? (1)

pairo (519657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771362)

My French is very rusty and google translate doesn't work with https (and I'm too lazy to copy paste everything by hand), but from what I saw, it has photos and names, no addresses, phone numbers or shoesize. It also had screenshots of facebook with them saying they hate non white people and similar for a couple of them.
The article is misleading, yes. But so is saying they're disclosing personal oh-so-sensitive information.

Heil Hitler Heil Hitler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771368)

The Vichy Government returns!

What next? Ban wikipedia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771380)

It is unbelievable that events like these could take place just 50 years ago in
a democratic country - and go unpunished
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Re:What next? Ban wikipedia? (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771698)

So, who did time for Kent State?

Probably not so clear cut (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771386)

The description of the website sounds noble enough, but you just know that the opportunity will be abused by so-called anarchists and the rest of the "f-ck the police" crowd. The other posts certainly seem to support this, what with the curiosity about the political leanings of the officers in question, which is something normal, non-bigoted people don't really care about. I'd be against shutting down the website if it were just about police misconduct, and not also a place for disgruntled teens and tweens to exact their revenge on police officers who dared ruin their fun.

Real estate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771498)

Its true now a days we can find any dame thing on the internet with quite ease. However just think is there anyone who can offer you maximum discount on any product which you wish to own? Well Bid4dream [bid4dream.com] is here to realize your dreams now. Now its possible to grab maximum discount on any product which you wish to buy. All you have to do is to grab the opportunity.

This Story is a Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37771542)

Seems to me like it's more about the safety (exposing personal data) rather than the integrity (morality? ethics) of the police. Bad translation, a sensational headline, or a dimwit editor?

Herp a derp derp, the world will never know.

French cops are too soft (1)

jsse (254124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37771946)

In where I live, you could be charged of national treason for reporting a police officer locking six girls in his own basement [google.com] for his own pleasure and occasionally taking them out for earning money by prostitution (that how he got caught - after locking them up for two years, and two girls were already found dead).

And good luck of being caught misbehaved in public, or you would be dragged into the police station and being hit for at least two hours, even when you are a high ranking military officer yourself [google.com] .

I'm risking my life telling you this. Now please excuse while I get the door, someone has been knocking my door vigorously for several minutes already...

siterip torrent plz, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37772012)

siterip torrent plz, anyone?

list of mirrors taken from the site (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37772264)

https://streisand.okhin.fr/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://streisand.trollab.org/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://front-comtois.com/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://mirror.chezmanu.eu/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
https://id-libre.org/copwatchnord-idf/ (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://mirrors.l0cal.com/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18)
https://copwatch-mirror.qsdf.org (Update 2011-10-18 / CAcert SSL)
http://pirat.me/flamby/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Update 2011-10-18 / Autoblog)
http://xvm-169-206.ghst.net/copwatch/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.meta.gd/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.hadop.in/ (Outdated)
http://copwatch.meta.gd/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.cypr.in/ (Outdated)
http://vienssucer.mateu.be (slow bandwidth / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.org.mirror.worldwideweb2.nl (Down ?)
https://downloads.event-lan.net/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (CAcert SSL / Outdated)
http://barbara.mobeatie.com/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (slow bandwidth / Outdated)
http://www.yoltie.net/streisand/copwatchnord-idf.org (Outdated)
http://mirror.labs.fr/pub/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (CAcert SSL / Outdated)
http://autistici.org/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (Outdated)
https://copwatch.red-net.info/ (incomplete / Outdated / CAcert SSL)
http://www.zone84.net/streisand/copwatchnord-idf.org/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.empedokles.eu/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://cleanplanet.free.fr/ (Update 2011-10-15)
http://copwatch.antagonism.org/ (Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.org.ruwenzori.net (Update 2011-10-18 - IPv6 only)
http://www.agarwaen.net/copwatch/ (Outdated)
https://beelo.venez.fr/streisand/copwatch/ (down?)
http://sebsauvage.net/streisand.me/copwatchnord-idf/ (Outdated)
http://copwatch-idf.mirror.tengu.ch/ (incomplete / Outdated)
http://copwatchnord-idf.tshirtman.fr/ (slow bandwidth / incomplete)
http://angenoir.me/streisand/copwatch/ (Update 2011-10-18)
http://hoper.dnsalias.net/miroirs/copwatchnord-idf.org/
http://mirror.optrash.net/copwatchnord-idf.org/

Apparently you can get an updated list of mirrors from:
http://werebuild.eu/wiki/Copwatch
which also tells you how to become a mirror.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>