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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Facebook To Pay City $200K-a-Year For a Neighborhood Cop

Unknown Lamer posted about 8 months ago | from the better-than-renting dept.

Facebook 235

theodp writes "Valleywag reports that Facebook just bought itself a police officer and questions what kind of mechanism will be in place to make sure the officer — whose position Facebook has agreed to fund to the tune of $200K-a-year for 3 years — doesn't provide preferential protection for the social network giant and its employees. It's probably a fair question, considering that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made the City of New Orleans enter into a federal consent decree designed to address the 'divided loyalties' of the city's moonlighting police officers. But for now, everything's hunky-dory in Menlo Park, where Police Chief Robert Jonsen called the deal a 'benchmark in private-public partnerships.' No doubt it is, as was last week's Google-City of San Francisco deal to fund free bus passes for low- and middle-income kids. But is giving earmarked funding to facilitate self-serving city expenditures a good or bad development?"

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

Wow... (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 8 months ago | (#46431859)

200k plus for *ONE* cop? I know that health insurence and retirement bennies add to the base wage, but 200k plus a year? How much is this dude making take home?

Re:Wow... (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46431869)

How much is this dude making take home?

Including graft, protection and money stolen from citizens or what he tells the IRS?

Re: Wow... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431883)

You do realize that each police officer on the streets requires much more resources than their salary right? They don't tend to buy their own cars, gas or fund their own lawsuits.

Re:Wow... (3, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46431889)

That's $96/hr, which seems within the ballpark for full-time contracted 10-99 labor with the requirement of special certifications and skills.

Re:Wow... (2)

Change (101897) | about 8 months ago | (#46431927)

Salary, health benefits, equipment, continuing training...

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432033)

With benefits, equipment, etc added, likely somewhere around 80k.

Re:Wow... (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 8 months ago | (#46432305)

In CA, I don't know -- it's an expensive place to live. The average (over the entire country) salary of a patrol officer is what, $30k??? (read: a whole LOT less than 200k, but a cop is the very definition of "high maintenance".)

Re:Wow... (2)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 8 months ago | (#46432481)

$30k for the salary (which is very low for California), but then there's all the other related expenses - all the benefits, and possibly expenses like a patrol car. I'm still unsure about $200k, but it's definitely way more than the salary that they're paying for at that price.

Re:Wow... (1)

VanGarrett (1269030) | about 8 months ago | (#46432711)

I dunno, $200k seems about right to me. 30k seems quite a bit low for a police officer, though. The tricky thing about deciding how much a cop's salary should be, is that you've gotta pay him enough to keep him honest. If he's having trouble making the rent each month, then taking a bribe here and there might start to sound pretty good to him.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432351)

Let's say:

Salary: $40k
Benefits/Pension: 50% Salary = $20k
Equipment: $10k
Personnel Costs: $5k

Total: $75k

So...

Bureaucracy: $125k ??

Re:Wow... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432585)

if they said $200,000 for some wanker to hang around all day and pretend
to do a little php work you wouldn't have batted an eye

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432605)

Overhead is a bitch....

That's likely not just paying his salary, but also part of the salary of any support staff, equipment costs, etc... Even desk space gets factored in and utilities get factored into these things... It's crazy.

To Protect and Serve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431877)

After your check clears.

Pretty ridiculous (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#46431881)

You could hire a private security guard for less. It's not like citizens don't have the same arresting powers as police if trespassers had to be dealt with.

The Libertarian end game. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431915)

Yeah, but it's about moving the Overton window. As the democratic state becomes weaker, private businesses take over a governing role. Before you had to bribe - now you just pay directly for cops.

Re:The Libertarian end game. (2)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46432053)

Yeah, but it's about moving the Overton window. As the democratic state becomes weaker, private businesses take over a governing role. Before you had to bribe - now you just pay directly for cops.

That's the real story here. And Menlo Park used to be quite the bad neighborhood, so with Cali government falling apart it would be a disturbing development if this meant that you have to hire your own police officer if you want police protection. But I think that's sensationalized - Menlo Park is already mid-gentrification, already has a very high police presence. It's just not the case here that Facebook needed to pay the cops just to do their job.

There's more here than meets the eye. FB certainly could have hired off-duty police officers as security guards for cheaper. It's either some stunt by FB, or a blatant shakedown by the local PD (nice campus you've got there ...), and I doubt we'll ever know which.

Re:The Libertarian end game. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432135)

Menlo Park? Mid-gentrification?

Crime is well below national average, it has almost half as many cops per capita as the state average, and is in the top 10 cities in the Bay Area by $/sq ft for homes. That is far past mid-gentrification.

Menlo Park east of 101 (the part next to East Palo Alto) is the remaining bad part. Exclude it and city metrics would be even better and closer to Palo Alto's. Facebook's campus is east of 101, and that's the impetus for wanting to have an additional officer.

Re:The Libertarian end game. (1)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46432183)

Fair point - I guess I should have said "the general area where Menlo Park and EPA are, that's there's not a great name for collectively" is mid-gentrification. Maybe we should call the area "Ravenswood", mostly because it sounds cool.

Re:The Libertarian end game. (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 8 months ago | (#46432323)

There's more here than meets the eye. FB certainly could have hired off-duty police officers as security guards for cheaper. It's either some stunt by FB, or a blatant shakedown by the local PD (nice campus you've got there ...), and I doubt we'll ever know which.

It's not a stunt. Facebook is just warming up enforce that TOS agreement... they really do hate fake names over there...

Re:Pretty ridiculous (5, Informative)

digitalvengeance (722523) | about 8 months ago | (#46432115)

Valid point, but there are key legal and practical differences. I am not a lawyer and I may not be read up on all the recent cases, but I am a police officer and I have looked into this area a bit a while back.

For example, police officers acting in their official capacity (regardless of who pays) are generally entitled to qualified immunity. While private guards may qualify for qualified immunity in some circumstances, the law there is much less clear and their use in actual roles requiring action (rather than just observing and reporting) can be a major source of liability.

That is, Facebook would generally be liable for actions taken by private security working directly for them. They set the policy the security guard follows and are liable for the consequences of that policy. Police officers, on the other hand, work for the city (or county or state or federal) and their actions are generally governed by policy and law, which may act as a buffer between Facebook's deep pockets and potential lawsuits.

Additionally, even in states where a citizen's arrest is perfectly legal, there are logistical concerns. In the states I am familiar with, resisting an officer who is effecting a legal arrest is illegal and in some states even resisting an illegal arrest is illegal unless certain other elements (i.e. risk of physical harm) are involved. When a citizen is attempting to effect the arrest, it is much easier for the person being arrested to simply claim they were being assaulted and fought back and there is no simple way to determine who is right.

Having a trained, experienced, uniformed police officer effecting the arrest undercuts this argument because it isn't (generally) reasonable for an individual to claim they were being randomly assaulted by an on-duty officer.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 8 months ago | (#46432141)

Those are valid points but there are body cameras for emergency and law enforcement workers that can document a security guards interaction with suspicious people if a security guard's employer needs legal indemnification.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432671)

Those are valid points but there are body cameras for emergency and law enforcement workers that can document a security guards interaction with suspicious people if a security guard's employer needs legal indemnification.

Yah and police have dash cams... and cities are still settling out of court for millions all the damned time for things like: car drove over officer's leg, he fired several shots killing the vehicle's passenger. (Austin, TX)

Or how about "Officer shoots someone's dog" (Everywhere, US) in all its sad variations.

Did the officer follow policy, were they justified, and did they receive enough training are ALWAYS debated. A camera doesn't fix that, it just shows what happened, and cities are still found liable all the time.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432185)

So, ceteris paribus ... a police officer can unlawfully detain me without repercussions, but a private citizen can not ?

Love how you can mention that in such a blatant manner.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (5, Interesting)

digitalvengeance (722523) | about 8 months ago | (#46432265)

Not at all. Rather, an officer has a much easier time justifying a lawful detainment than a private citizen does and is on much more solid legal ground if he or she has to use force in the furtherance of a legal goal. Officers also typically have more training and experiencing both in preventing the need for such force and using it appropriately when necessary. (There are, of course, examples to the contrary.)

If an officer truly just unlawfully detains you, then the question becomes whether or not that unlawful detainment violated a clearly established constitutional right. If so, qualified immunity generally doesn't apply and someone is getting out their checkbook. In fact, as an agent of the state, an officer is at greater peril if they violate your rights as they can be both civilly and criminally liable at both the state and federal level and they can also receive departmental discipline. What that means is that a single action can result in repercussions for the officer in five different venues.

Again, I am not a lawyer and I am skipping over a lot of important details that aren't really relevant to a hypothetical like this.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432399)

So this clearly means we need more restrictions on how people can be detained and independent auditing and prosecution of every detention arrest or interaction. Because about 90% of cops are... let us just say far to legally protected.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 8 months ago | (#46432527)

So, in short, Facebook just bought a security guard who has better legal rights to use force.

Re:Pretty ridiculous (1)

adiposity (684943) | about 8 months ago | (#46432597)

When a citizen is attempting to effect the arrest, it is much easier for the person being arrested to simply claim they were being assaulted and fought back and there is no simple way to determine who is right.

But with a police officer, there is a simple way to determine who is right: the officer.

RoboCop (1, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 8 months ago | (#46431885)

As if cops weren't already completely biased towards corporations and against individual citizens.

This is a move in the direction satirised by RoboCop (the original). Very bad news.

Re:RoboCop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431951)

As if cops weren't already completely biased towards corporations and against individual citizens.

Actually, a lot of cops try to help individual citizens, too, just not in everything they do or not all the time. If you look respectable and treat cops with respect, usually they're helpful. (Unless you're black or hispanic or in LA.)

Why would a poor city kid... (0)

pigiron (104729) | about 8 months ago | (#46431893)

want to spend the day on in Cupertino?

Bad development (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431895)

Pay your fucking taxes and accept good service in return. If the service isn't good, fix it for everybody or buy your own private cops. The need for private cops embarrasses the public cops, which it should.

Buying government cops is the merger of corporation and state--the very definition of fascism and inherently corrupt.

Not just cops. The Google "public private partnership" is corrupt too; but not quite as bad since it doesn't involve guys with guns.

Re:Bad development (1)

jawnah (1022209) | about 8 months ago | (#46432129)

The Google "public private partnership" is corrupt too; but not quite as bad since it doesn't involve guys with guns.

Yet.

"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybody" (5, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46432153)

"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybody"

They did.

They earmarked the funds for a cop, instead of just giving the city money to spend on whatever stupid, politically motivated bullshit worth maybe $25,000 some city councilman's brother in law could get away with selling the city for that same $200,000.

I rather approve of earmarks like this.

If I could earmark donated funds for specific uses, like solar powered LED street lights that pretty much never need service for 20+ years, I'd probably buy several for my neighborhood, as they are ~$500 each, and labor to put them up couldn't be more than ~$200 each (and if it was, I'd hire the private contractors to do the work instead of city employees). I'd happily pay $3,500 out of pocket for 5 lights to get safer streets in my immediate neighborhood.

Re:"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybod (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 8 months ago | (#46432483)

The problem is that when that happens, then the city cuts police funding by $200k. Earmarks don't work, unless the person giving them has some say over their use (as an annual grant has). But like the Lotto in Texas going to schools resulted in the school funding from the general fund decreasing by the amount earned in the lotto, the result was exactly the same as if the lotto funded the general fund, but was an easier sell to lie about it's use.

Re:"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybod (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 8 months ago | (#46432601)

The problem is that by paying for the cop, they tell the city "there'd better be a cop right here".

Which is not how efficient policing works.

Imagine, to oversimplify, that the cop responds to a burglary 6 blocks away. At the same time, someone on/near the FB campus gets victimized. Will FB blame to city for the cop not being there? Will he have to turn around because the 911 from FB is more important? Is that rule written, or is it just a strong hint given to the dispatcher?
What about presence in bad areas, which is a more effective practice than protecting one campus? Cant the cops go patrol a 20-block radius, or do they need to make sure that someone is always near FB?
What happens to giving deserved tickets to FB employees, when their boss pays Bob?

Re:"If the service isn't good, fix it for everybod (3, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46432793)

The problem is that by paying for the cop, they tell the city "there'd better be a cop right here".

I expect the conversation went more like this:

FB: "We are building new housing in a ghetto area and we plan to have 10% of it go to our employees, and 90% of it to be rented at below market rates do that people can have better housing; all of this will be worthless, however, if no one wants to live there due to the high crime rate in the area. We'd like to see periodic patrols by a police officer in the area"

MP: "Sorry, we don't have enough officers to guarantee periodic patrols in the area that you're requesting"

FB: "Have another officer, on us, then, so that you can periodically patrol the area"

MP: "Thanks!"

Re:Bad development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432213)

If the service isn't good, fix it for everybody

+1000

The guilt here lies with politicians / public officials, who roll-over for private companies but not the citizens who elect them.
I suppose the guilt also lies with us ... we need to stand-up for ourselves and make our votes matter. Stop supporting the same people year after year.

Buying police officers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431897)

Sounds a lot like the mafia.

The real reason FB has an officer. (3, Interesting)

t0qer (230538) | about 8 months ago | (#46431899)

I work down the street from their menlo park/willow road campus. Right now Facebook is building an apartment complex across the street from HQ. They've promised to only rent 10% of the apartments to their employees with the other 90% being offered to the general public at market rate.

Despite the nice sounding name, Menlo Park's east side is akin to East Palo Alto. Slum neighborhoods, crime, ghetto. With the influx of google/facebook employees however the neighborhood is slowly gentrifying.

I think facebook wants to turn the neighborhood into something more appealing for their employees.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432071)

They're black, you mean. Scary black people.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (4, Informative)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46432181)

They're black, you mean. Scary black people.

You wish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

"The 2010 United States Census[9] reported that Menlo Park had a population of 32,026." ... "The racial makeup of Menlo Park was 22,494 (70.2%) White, 1,551 (4.8%) African American, 156 (0.5%) Native American, 3,157 (9.9%) Asian, 454 (1.4%) Pacific Islander, 2,776 (8.7%) from other races, and 1,438 (4.5%) from two or more races."

You don't have to be a particular race to live in a slum, you just have to have bad neighbors who make things miserable for everyone else.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432909)

Niggers. Actually. What you refer to are niggers.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 8 months ago | (#46432099)

Slum neighborhoods, crime, ghetto. With the influx of google/facebook employees however the neighborhood is slowly gentrifying.

. . . so where do all the slum, crime and ghetto folks go when the place gets gentrified . . . a couple of blocks down the road . . . ? With all those rich folks moving in . . . I'd think it would make it a much more attractive place to commit crimes.

More tiny,shiny, expensive devices to ApplePick . . .

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#46432195)

> . . . so where do all the slum, crime and ghetto folks go when the place gets gentrified . . .

I dunno, camp out in Ravesnwood?

But seriously, what's the alternative? Leave the area a rat hole because certain kinds of people need to live in rat holes?

I spent a year at Tan House back in the day, and can say that the tales of massive prostitution and drug use were exaggerated. They did have a serious cockroach problem, though. I remember a note tacked up by the mailboxes, in the vein of "You people need to stop living like pigs!" Fun times.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#46432137)

So ? Just allow the "civilian" to get their CCW...

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (-1, Flamebait)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | about 8 months ago | (#46432345)

...and the solution, once again, is... MORE GUNS!

Thanks for coming, now put on your helmet and get back on the short bus.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46432425)

And yet, I don't have a problem with that. In fact, there's many places in "safe canada" where I'd love to have the right to carry a gun for my own personal protection. Mainly in Toronto/burbs/Ottawa/burbs and especially the areas around Vancouver. Oh and I absolutely can't forget Saskatoon, which is not quite at Detroit levels of compete shitiness. But for the most part is where Detroit was in 1997.

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#46432551)

Not to mention in the wilderness :-)

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432545)

Thanks for coming, now put on your helmet and get back on the short bus.

Why? Are you in a hurry to leave?

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#46432547)

What is the reason you like so much to have cop around ? Because they can deter violence though threat of violence, remember, they *do* have firearms. The very basic thing you are irresponsible enough to handle. Moreover, YOUR answer to the problem is the very same I am proposing, that is MORE guns. A LEO without a sidearm and a select-fire rifle (ie. the real "assault" weapon) in the trunk would not be much of a deterrence for criminals...

Re:The real reason FB has an officer. (1)

fermion (181285) | about 8 months ago | (#46432303)

So they literaly buy a cop instead of just investing in the neighborhood like a normal megamaniacal corporation. A cop, unless the cop is being paid to apply the law differentially and go beyond the law when needed, is not going to do much good. Most revitalization depends on land prices going up enough so that people move out in a large enough area. Cops are useful, but harassment is not usually enough to get people out, and stupid people with money just tends to attract criminals.

Ultimately business pays for everything... (3, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#46431909)

Everything. And at some level, society needs to be built around facilitating and accommodating business. Again... they pay for EVERYTHING.

Should any one business get preferential treatment? No.

However, business itself should get preferential treatment.

Why? Because if business is unhappy in a given area... the area dies. Look at Detroit. That's what happens if you piss all over business for decades. And keep in mind, Detroit has had tens of billions pumped into it by the federal government to try and keep it alive. Over many years going back generations now. It doesn't matter. Piss on business and you'll wither and die.

So... getting to the issue of these private police and bus passes. Why are these companies giving the local government extra money? Because the local government is shaking them down. Google for example is having its ability to commute workers into and out of San Fransisco interfered with... that's not sustainable. Either it has to stop or Google can't maintain a workforce in the city. Google has therefore attempted to bribe the city into doing something the city should have done at no additional cost.

As to facebook... no idea why they're buying the police. But I can only assume they've had security problems and the local police were not responsive. As a result... they've felt the need to incentive assistance.

All told the whole thing is pretty sad. And before someone talks about the evil corporations, lets get something straight... look around the country in more business friendly areas. Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much. So California is where we're seeing this now.

Why of why would that be?

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (-1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 8 months ago | (#46431979)

And before someone talks about the evil corporations, lets get something straight... look around the country in more business friendly areas. Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much. So California is where we're seeing this now.
Why of why would that be?

Is this a quiz?
Is it because South Dakota and the Carolinas don't have any corporations?

Or are you trying to make some kind of dumb non-sequiteur?

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 8 months ago | (#46432151)

Actually they both do... The Dakota's are home to one of the biggest petro chemical booms in the country right now. There are massive mining and drilling operations happening throughout the area.

And the Carolinas are home to some of the bigger factory complexes in the country at this point.

So... you stand corrected.

*yawn*

Seriously... millions of people live in the Carolinas and you think there isn't a corporation there? All due respect, but that's fucking idiotic.

I can only assume your further comments on this point will be equally stupid... so lets just stop here... I have nothing to offer you but ridicule and abuse if that is what you're bringing to the table. And I'll feel fully justified in my scorn. Shame on you and good day, sir.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432157)

We've found ourselves a Republican. So can you explain why you think it is morally acceptable for Mark Suckerburg to hire people to beat minorities, but it is wrong for the people to democratically vote in a government to hire a cop that doesn't do that? No, it is always wrong to beat someone just for not being white. It is sick how you Republicans defend that.

> either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there?

You see a lot of it. Just after graduating college, I was a cop in Woodruff, SC, and I made $14k per year. The Monsanto plant near town paid for my position and vehicle. The difference is there the people worship corporations so they don't complain. In the Bay Area, the people are much less racist so they complain like you see here. Also, the stunning amount of money Facebook has decided to spend in this bribe also makes it newsworthy. Describing the $6.75/hour I made wouldn't make for good reading.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432215)

> So can you explain why you think it is morally acceptable for Mark Suckerburg to hire people to beat minorities

He can't be expected to do it himself, now can he?

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432253)

> So can you explain why you think it is morally acceptable for Mark Suckerburg to hire people to beat minorities

He can't be expected to do it himself, now can he?

I thought he still did that, but only on Tuesdays.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46432471)

Perhaps you can explain what part in his post he was stating that someone should get beaten for being a different race. Well perhaps I should just reply, look we found a liberal-democrat...when all else fails they fall back on race. Because it's the "magic card."

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432291)

Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much. So California is where we're seeing this now.

Why of why would that be?

Ronald Reagan was governor of California.

Question answered?

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432795)

The question was "answered," but it was a stupid answer.

The 1960s are over. Jerry Brown is governor of California.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432371)

I'm sure there are (or rather were) a large number of Native Americans who would be puzzled at your assertion their culture could not have existed.

In reality, if it is true that without business an area "dies", it's because that same business insinuates itself into society (particularly, via privatization of everything) such that one will find survival without it practically difficult. Fortunately, camping and most of human history is there to demonstrate your notions are fallacious.

In the end, literally nothing needed, or really even beneficial, to the requirements of survival will be provided by Facebook.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432541)

Great, we owe them everything. oh we owe, we owe them...

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (4, Informative)

SpankiMonki (3493987) | about 8 months ago | (#46432639)

Take texas or South Dakota or either of the Carolinas... how much of this police buying are we seeing there? Not much.

My neighborhood in Dallas pays $70K/year for what the DPD calls "ENP" (Enhanced Neighborhood Patrol). For the $70K we get two armed, uniformed police officers driving a marked DPD patrol car for 1000 hours per year (above their regular patrols) in a neighborhood of about 1 square mile. This sort of thing goes on in neighborhoods all over town, and the DPD has a similar program for businesses that is quite popular as well. My brother who lives in Houston also has paid patrols by the HPD in his neighborhood (don't know the costs).

Anyway, "police buying" is alive and well down here in the Lone Star State. Come on down & check it out. (if you do make it down here, don't let anybody know you failed to capitalize the "T" in "Texas"...you might get shot)

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (1, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#46432745)

You're right that business pays for (almost) anything, but they should not be given a backdoor to pay for things at their discretion. Those decisions should be made by the represented public.

For that to happen, high percentage tax brackets would need to be re-enstated and embargoes placed on offshore tax havens. Fat chance.

Oh, and Detroit is dead because they made shitty cars for too long.

Re:Ultimately business pays for everything... (2)

Tom (822) | about 8 months ago | (#46432837)

Everything. And at some level, society needs to be built around facilitating and accommodating business. Again... they pay for EVERYTHING.

That is total bullshit.

People pay for everything. Corporations pay nothing whatsoever. I'm not talking about dodging taxes, I'm talking about the simple fact that any tax you leverage on them will simply be added to the price of whatever they're selling, so whatever money a corporation pays in taxes was first taken from its customers.

Rome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46431913)

Wealthy benefactors contributing to public infrastructure and social programs was basically how ancient Rome functioned.

Re:Rome (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#46432147)

There is a reason it is now called ANCIENT Rome...

Huh? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46431943)

So this is already a working, employed cop?

And he will continue to receive his government salary and do his day job? So what does he just have two jobs now? During the day to protect citizens, and during the night to protect FB?

Re:Huh? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 8 months ago | (#46432021)

Hopefully the three-year deal and salary allows the police department to budget for one or two more officers on staff.

Rich people (0)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 8 months ago | (#46432015)

Some rich people have this idea that they can live in their cozy-comfy enclaves, and let the rest of the world go to shit. In fact, not only to let it go, but to hasten it's demise through plunder. Sorry. If you're rich and you think of yourself this way, instead of imagining that you are separated on some island, picture a bulkhead of a ship with a wall built similar to the Titanic's (not going all the way to the top). You breathe the same air, eat food from the same farms and fish from the same ocean, and your shit goes to the same place. There are a lot more monkeys on the other side of that bulkhead wall than you've got on your side, and if you think you can isolate yourselves from the problems on the other side, well ... you're gonna have a bad time.

Re:Rich people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432063)

I'm far from rich and I also like the idea of cozy-comfy enclaves.

Boo Freaking Hoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432125)

Make yourself productive or move to the Central Valley and stop complaining.

Re:Rich people (2)

Shados (741919) | about 8 months ago | (#46432875)

To be fair, that culture comes from both sides. When your neighbor is blasting their music at 2 in the morning or have an idiot dog barking all evening and you try and get the city laws enforced, half of the time you're told to deal with it, mind your own business, and if you don't like it, get the fuck out.

It doesn't take too many times of crap like that happening before anyone with a bit more money than average takes the hint and does just that. Which means after a while, all the rich people just isolate themselves from the rest. And since there's only so many places where they can "get the fuck out", you end up with gentrification.

So really, everyone's responsible.

I don't understand all the liberal hand-wringing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432025)

For all the hand-wringing liberals whining about how this subverts public process, etc, let me put it more simply for you: this is not a choice between having a larger government law enforcement program paid for by taxes versus having a company fund a police officer. This is a choice between having a police offer or not.

If Facebook hadn't funded this cop, it's not like money would magic itself into the budget and suddenly a slum would have regular cop patrols. No, instead it's that the place would remain a crime-ridden slum without police presence. Is that what you really want?

Don't let "perfection" (according to your opinion) become the enemy of good. So, should the city receive an extra, necessary cop to reduce crime in this area or not? There is no third choice, no matter how much you whine.

Re:I don't understand all the liberal hand-wringin (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432131)

If facebook paid honest taxes where they operate, the city could afford to do this without the commercial influence. Where does a non-fb-employee stand in a legal quarrel with fb if the police in the case is only existing through the grace of fb? Dont let 'fucked up idea to begin with' be the enemy of 'thinking up a reasonable solution' - Especially when FB is avoiding paying to the obvious (already instated) solution to begin with - a solution that actually benefits everyone, not just fb.

Re:I don't understand all the liberal hand-wringin (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432377)

Ah, yes, the old "fair share" argument. Tell you what: feel free not to take the deductions and exemptions you are entitled to take on your taxes. What? You don't feel like volunteering to pay more than you owe? Wow, neither does Facebook!

If you think FB isn't paying enough taxes then push for a simplified tax code without deductions. You people act like individuals/companies are doing something wrong by not volunteering to pay more taxes than they are required to do. If you think they are actually defrauding the government rather than abiding by the laws, then by all means, attempt to have them audited and prosecuted.

Don't blame people for being smart, though. FFS, it's just *ironic* to do that on a "nerd" site.

BTW, I see you are a member of the "let's have no police officer in the area at all" camp. Remember, there's no third option where you magically extract more money from the public and inject it into the government's budget. This city needs FB far more than FB needs the city. Enjoy your ivory tower. Hope you don't get mugged without any police protection there.

Gang Style Protection.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432061)

What is next? Everybody should pay for "protection"?

Re:Gang Style Protection.. (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#46432159)

Isn't that what taxes are ? Paying for the "protection" of violence which might comes upon us if we don't "pay".

Re:Gang Style Protection.. (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 8 months ago | (#46432209)

Unless you don't pay taxes, you already are.

Yeah, because it is so easy to get rid of any cop (3, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 8 months ago | (#46432073)

When they are fully funded by taxes alone. Please, it is virtually impossible to get rid of any police officer for anything. Look at the CA Dorner case. Police shot at two cars of innocent people and nothing happened to them - at all. And people worry about this. Bullshit.

This isn't as outrageous as it seems (3, Interesting)

machineghost (622031) | about 8 months ago | (#46432121)

Private entities pay for cops all the time, this isn't as radical as it seems. For instance, when I used to be involved in student government we knew that part of the cost of having a big event was having to pay for the mandatory number of cops who had to be there. The city knew that college students in large groups were trouble, and they didn't want to have to foot the bill, so they passed an ordance that required us to foot the bill for any event with X number of people expected (I forget what X was).

I'm pretty sure the same thing happens with some concerts, sporting events, etc.: the municipalities don't want to pay, so they make the entity responsible pay for it. Then again, lots of stadium owners have cozy deals with the city, which probably avoid this sort of thing.

In any case, the only unusual thing about this that I can see is that's a full-time gig.

Weird. (1)

anmre (2956771) | about 8 months ago | (#46432149)

I question the morality of cops for hire. Doesn't a private company paying the police anything, for any reason, other than general taxation, imply corruption?

I know that there are university cops at private colleges with their own cars and shit, but this just seems weird.

Lone Star (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432189)

Yo Chummers. Looks like the privatization of the police force is coming right along.
Other corps have already slicked the justice system in their favor.
See you in the shadows!

Some compensation? (3, Insightful)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 8 months ago | (#46432197)

Perhaps large corporations contributing to public funds goes some tiny way to compensate for their tax avoidance schemes, that helped make the local and federal governments short of cash in the first place.

Beats the heck out of paying taxes (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 8 months ago | (#46432221)

Jokes aside this stuff scares me. It's basically the rich getting their social services without letting the poors have them. Very few people recognize the tremendous amount of luck that goes into becoming and then staying wealthy. It basically means either a) life was handed to you on a silver plate or b) absolutely nothing major ever went wrong in your life or the lives of your immediate family.

It's like how the fund the schools here with property tax. They don't do that to be fair. They do it so the rich don't have to pay for the poor's educations.

Now, on the topic of why the rich _should_ be paying for that. Well, that's the price of a stable and progressive civilization.

Re:Beats the heck out of paying taxes (1)

jittles (1613415) | about 8 months ago | (#46432565)

It's like how the fund the schools here with property tax. They don't do that to be fair. They do it so the rich don't have to pay for the poor's educations.

I'm confused by this statement. In theory a rich person has a nicer house than a poor person. So the rich person pays higher property tax than the poor person. If the rich person is paying a higher tax, then aren't they helping to subsidize the education of the less fortunate? Now if the rich person lives a frugal lifestyle and lives in the same standard of housing as a poor person, then your argument makes some sense. Now since property tax is often assessed at a county level, this may mean that rich people live in their own county and the poor live in another county. Then it may make sense as well. But on its face, your argument seems backwards.

Re:Beats the heck out of paying taxes (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432705)

You are confused because you don't understand how school district funding works. The schools are funded from the property tax collected WITHIN the school district, meaning that a district like Orange county is going to be funded a whole bunch better than a district in Compton. In other countries, schools are funded out of the national budget, and you don't have the disparity in education that the US has.

You might think that you might have school districts with both rich and poor neighborhoods, but generally what happens is that the level of school district funding either forces the property value in the poor neighborhoods up, because the district is well funded, or forces the property value down in the rich neighborhoods because the schools are bad, or the district zoning is redrawn to exclude the poor kids from the rich kids district.

Mod parent up (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 8 months ago | (#46432857)

beat me to the explanation :)

Re:Beats the heck out of paying taxes (0)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about 8 months ago | (#46432833)

It's like how the fund the schools here with property tax. They don't do that to be fair. They do it so the rich don't have to pay for the poor's educations.

Except that's not why "poor" schools suck.

Michigan changed it's system ... 20 years ago? To stop that, er, terrible injustice and equalize things.

So Detroit schools became better, right? What's that? No?

It's not the money. Leftist controlled school systems simply piss the money away. The more you give them, the worse they get.

Detroit lost nearly every viable job... (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 8 months ago | (#46432869)

when all the manufacturing moved to Mexico & China. It happened almost overnight, but they still had millions of people and a large infrastructure. Naturally the tax base collapse and the schools became hopelessly underfunded while their students struggled with a level of poverty normally reserved for blasted out sections of Afghanistan.

I know it's fashionable to blame Detroit's problems on the Evil Tax And Spend Democrats (tm), but even a cursory glance at the facts proves it otherwise.

real cops are better then rent a cops who have lit (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 8 months ago | (#46432251)

real cops are better then rent a cops who have little to no cop power

Pretty Simple (4, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 8 months ago | (#46432269)

This is just a quiet, PR-positive way of very slowly taking governance out of the hands of voters and putting it in the hands of corporate executives. You can read about it here. [wikipedia.org]

Armed soldiers with arrest powers no longer accountable to the people? What could go wrong?

Simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432657)

This is still much better than the nation's leader choosing which laws to enforce instead of going through the real process of changing the laws.

In other news (1)

distilate (1037896) | about 8 months ago | (#46432299)

The incidence of Google users and staff being brutally manhandled by 'police' in Menlo Park has dramatically increased.

This is what taxes are for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46432311)

If they would just pay their fucking taxes this kind of shit would not be necessary.

wtf? (1)

Patent Lover (779809) | about 8 months ago | (#46432417)

Is this story a coherent paragraph? If so, I need to go back to school.

It's Begun (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 8 months ago | (#46432645)

Who'd have thought that America's first domino piece of descent into corporatist totalitarianism would be Facebook?

Not a bad deal, actually! (1)

bradorsomething (527297) | about 8 months ago | (#46432785)

When you take into account cost of his titanium armor, ammo for his special sidearm, computer support systems... really that's not a bad price per year.

Wait, we are talking about Robocop, right? I mean, come on, it's Google. He wouldn't be the first computer driving a car around there or anything...

goodbye (1)

Tom (822) | about 8 months ago | (#46432827)

It's an absolutely horrible precedent. It is a step back more than 2,000 years. The closest thing in real history was the very first firefighters in ancient Rome - a private enterprise that made its owner one of the richest men in Rome through a simple principle: Whenever there was a fire, he'd show up with his firefighters (slaves, btw.) and offer the owner of the house to buy it on the spot and make him a tenant in his (formerly) own house. The price he offered was ridiculously low. If the owner sold, they'd put out the fire. If not, he'd let it burn to the ground.

So, will this be a personal/private cop? No, that would be too obvious. They'll all make sure it looks all clean, because it's only the first step.

But it does mean that if ever Facebook runs afoul of the law, there'll be one less cop willing to raid them...

Taxes (2)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 8 months ago | (#46432849)

Mega corporations do whatever they can to dodge taxes, and then discover that they need tax-funded public services: cops and transports. What is next? Microsoft will subsidize roads? Cisco will build a sewage? Apple will raise an army?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?