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!

GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the that's-mighty-suspicious dept.

Censorship 561

mikesd81 writes "Wired is running a story about GoDaddy shutting down a police watchdog site called RateMyCop. However, GoDaddy can't seem to give a consistent answer as for why. From the article: 'RateMyCop founder Gino Sesto says he was given no notice of the suspension. When he called GoDaddy, the company told him that he'd been shut down for suspicious activity. When Sesto got a supervisor on the phone, the company changed its story and claimed the site had surpassed its 3 terabyte bandwidth limit, a claim that Sesto says is nonsense. "How can it be overloaded when it only had 80,000 page views today, and 400,000 yesterday?" Sesto says police can post comments as well, and a future version of the site will allow them to authenticate themselves to post rebuttals more prominently. Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal, which, of course, wouldn't pass constitutional muster in any court in America.'"

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

1984 (5, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730454)

I am hopeful that mankind can avoid ending up like in 1984, for the simple reason that the same technology that enables today's widespread spying by our government on its own citizens can also be leveraged to help us keep tabs on them. Even if they make sites like this one illegal, they will be hosted elsewhere. Furthermore, unless they figure out how to take away all of our camera cell phones, tiny solid state audio recorders, etc then we will continue to have vastly more power to document police corruption than we did just 10 years ago when you'd have to have a camcorder at hand, charged and with a tape in it, to capture anything.

I might even go so far as to say that I'd _like_ to see the government try and crack down on sites like this (and wikileaks etc), as this will only draw more attention to the problem, causing replication of the data and hastening the process of smart people finding even better general solutions for circumventing censorship.

The current situation in America really does look like 1984 already - not just the spying and media manipulation, but also the continuous fearmongering and blatant lies to justify this protracted and costly war. However I believe there really is hope for us to turn this around, and that the solution lies in leveraging the internet, encryption, and the same technologies being used now to spy on us. Let's keep finding better ways to protect information, let's keep uncovering the corruption, and let's turn this around before it's too late.

Re:1984 (1, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730522)

But what if you were the Police office who unfairly got poor reviews because you arested someone who deserved it...

They are people too with families and life outside of work. Being a policeman is not a good job if you want to be popular.

That being said. Police also need a strong watchdog towards them because they fail to police themselfs and a lot goes on espectially in my little city. That where the good guys get arrested for protecting themselfs while the bad guys get off scott free, because they are "friends" of the police men. There are a lot of good cops but there are also a Lot of bad cops. and we do need find a way to get rid of the bad ones who do it for the power vs. the good ones who do it to keep a civil society.

Re:1984 (5, Insightful)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730560)

But what if you were the Police office who unfairly got poor reviews because you arested someone who deserved it..

So what? Free speech has nothing to do with what's "fair".

Re:1984 (3, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730710)

So what? Free speech has nothing to do with what's "fair".

No, but the Internet is a little skewed, don't you think? "Reviews" are often "criticisms", especially when anonymity and charged opinion is concerned. Check your local gaming forum for details. (Hardware and book reviews do a better job, mostly because there are user accounts tied to the reviews...not always. But even then, it's anonymous accounts -- and a rateyourcop site isn't going to have the single-author prolificness to tell whether they're angry or right.)

And then you think of rating your cop. I don't know any cops, though I'm sure my city of 100,000 has at least one. And if I did meet them, I would probably give them an honest rating, because I tend to be sort of level-headed, even on the anonymous Internet (well, since my 2nd year of Everquest back in 99...). But most people have bad experiences with police, even if the police were doing the right thing. "Yah, I was doing 85 miles per hour in a 30, but American Idol was on. The cop laughed at that, but still gave me a ticket. Bastard."

Cops have a sucky enough job as it is and while I see a rating system like this as useful for many things, it'll be used for pettiness most of all. The serious issues cops get called out on have more efficient means of getting handled.

Not a cop. I just think of pulling someone over at 3 AM and wondering, every single time, if you're going to walk up to that window and get shot.

Re:1984 (5, Insightful)

Damocles the Elder (1133333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730874)

Several things. One, free speech. Two, it even says in the summary about how they're hoping to allow cops to post rebuttals. Three, I'd rather have people venting at cops in a public forum then getting steamed enough to pop like the cork on bad wine (I recall a story a couple weeks ago about someone shooting up a town hall and killing several people therein over parking tickets).

Re:1984 (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730920)

I get where you're going, but see previous comment. Just because people don't like ratemycop (notably the officers) doesn't mean its bad. Internet is always going to have extremes and moderates. Who cares how skewed it is, its an early layout of the site.

It could end up something like yelp or digg or some sort of moderated system where its more reliable, but that's up to the site operator. Said site operator should not be responsible for the stuff posted on them (AKA DMCA230 clause- even if we are to get rid of DMCA one day this protection needs to be saved). It's not their fault if it becomes an "I hate cops, cops are pigs" site really, is it? Just because he allowed people to speak?

Cops have a sucky enough job because of the bureaucrats behind em, its not the cop fault. Doesn't mean the cop or the bureaucrats should be taken off of their responsibilities here....it's just rediculously hard to set up a working system to hold the bureaucrats responsible so far...they fight this to no end.

Re:1984 (4, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730934)

Well, first off, the cops can respond if they choose. They can exercise their free speech as well.

The example you post is silly; people will judge the comments too, they just won't blindly agree with them.

As far as cops having sucky jobs and "wondering if they'll be shot." Well, my only response is they choose that line of work. Given that I've been directly bullied by cops, and that none have ever directly protected me, I can't say that I really want them around anyway. Not talking about detectives.. I'm talking about the more or less useless ones that drive around randomly or park near an interstate with a radar gun.

Re:1984 (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730840)

Whoops, mis-modded you as flamebait, so I'm replying to undo it. Sorry about that.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730892)

Absolutely. Not related, but that's what I thought when I heard of the insidious "fairness doctrine."

Re:1984 (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730932)

Slander...
There is speach used to get an Idea, point, warning across (this is good).
Then there is speach to speak untruths to attack a person or group (this is a bad thing).

Re:1984 (2, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730972)

Yes. That's why we have courts. It's a rights violation to shut down the entire site simply because there is the possibility of slander.

Re:1984 (2, Insightful)

Borealis (84417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730610)

While it would suck to be unfairly flagged as a bad cop, the alternative to allowing anonymous folks to bitch about their arresting officer would be to restrict speech that is most certainly free. I think the cons (no pun intended) far outweigh the pros in that scenario.

Re:1984 (4, Interesting)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730670)

Or, you could prohibit anonymous speech. This would have the dual purpose of both allowing people to speak and allowing them to be held responsible for their speech if need be (slander/libel).

Re:1984 (4, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730766)

That would also help the police determine just how long they have to take to respond to a call to your house, or from your cel phone. Give one bad review, and suddenly find that it takes the cops about thirty minutes to get to your house.

Re:1984 (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730816)

Okay, and your point is? You are suggesting that there is a corruption so pervasive in law enforcement that your complaint will make an enemy of the entire police force who will them abdicate their sworn duty to the public in order to be vindictive about a complaint so minor you didn't bother to actually take it up with someone who could actually do something about it.

If that's true, your worry is not how many minutes it will take the police to arrive, but when they're going to shoot you dead for parking in a handicapped spot or mouthing off to one of their friends.

Re:1984 (5, Insightful)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730856)

So far, they've pepper-sprayed a girl having an asthma attack, kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach, illegally searched my car for pipe bombs, rear-ended me by driving with their lights out, and told me to watch out for "indians with axes" at night. I'd hate to see what they'd do if they actually knew our NAMES.

Re:1984 (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730890)

Yes that would be a good assestment...

If you piss off law inforcement, and they will tend to keep a closer eye on you and wait for you to stumble. Oh your blinker is out, a warning or an arrest? Anomious is nessary. Espectially if you deal with the same person often.

Re:1984 (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730976)

Which is, in my opinion, another reason people should be defending themselves, not handing it off to a third, typically uninterested, party.

Re:1984 (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730802)

So the cops could then go and harass them after they post bad reviews?

Re:1984 (1)

fumblebruschi (831320) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730824)

It would also have the third effect of allowing the criticized cops to attack the posters both openly and clandestinely. If I publicly criticized a cop, using my real name, I would be harassed day and night from that day forward, by that cop and by his friends. The police have enormous power; we don't need to allow them to silence criticism too.

Re:1984 (1)

notgm (1069012) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730630)

i imagine that if they only posted badge numbers instead of full names, the privacy issues of the off-duty officers would be lessened severely.

although, if their names are publicly available, this really shouldn't be a new concern.

Re:1984 (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730660)

But what if you were the Police office who unfairly got poor reviews because you arested someone who deserved it...

Man up, nancy-boy.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730936)

Police need a watchdog, you admit that yourself. It's almost blatantly clear that the existing checks in place are insufficient.

Who better to watch them that the people they're supposed to be working for: we the people?

I mean, this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people and whatnot. If this is truly to be the case, we the people should be able to know what our civil servants are doing, and to rate them on their job. After all, we're supposed to be their big boss--you know, the one you get scared to do a presentation in front of because one word from that guy and you could be out of a job.

Unfortunately, the masses in the US is comprised of idiots, as opposed to the intellectual elite that our founders were, in which case the system will be prone to abuse, from both sides, I'd imagine. But having something is better than having nothing, and this, I think, is a good first step towards returning the power to the citizens.

Re:1984 (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730970)

Being a policeman is not a good job if you want to be popular.

Well, I think you said it yourself. Last I saw they weren't drafting people to become police officers. If you don't like heights, don't become a window washer. If you don't want to wear a tie, don't go into management.

Re:1984 (1)

Laughing Pigeon (1166013) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730570)

Furthermore, unless they figure out how to take away all of our camera cell phones, tiny solid state audio recorders, etc then we will continue to have vastly more power to document police corruption than we did just 10 years ago when you'd have to have a camcorder at hand, charged and with a tape in it, to capture anything.

There is no need for that, the ministry of truth will take care of it for You, I am sure of that. Now let's watch "Dancing on ice with the Stars"!

Re:1984 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730614)

I am hopeful that mankind can avoid ending up like in 1984

Me too. Legwarmers, rolled-up sleeves, fingerless gloves, bodywarmers, shell suits... I truly hope mankind can avoid those kinds of atrocities in future.

Re:1984 (3, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730686)

It's not that simple...

There is a legitimate concern for cops that do go undercover (they tend to do so off and on throughout a career), in that once they do, there's a big, fat online database that folks can check against before even asking "are you a cop?". This can present a legitimate danger if there's pictures or other personally identifiable information right there on the site.

There is a superior need for transparency in any society, but sometimes that has to be balanced against personal safety - including the safety of the cops.

As for the 1984 allegories? I suspect that you all-too easily attribute to malice what can be more easily attributed to incompetence, greed, and disparate desires that happen to run in parallel. For example, the Media manipulates to elicit drama and eyeballs, by which to convert into advertisement profit. Politicians manipulate and propagandize (in both directions!) in order to garner popularity, votes, and power (for both themselves and their ideology).

Trust me - having seen the US Government form both inside and out? I can say with certainty that as a group, it would be easier to put a colony on Mars than to organize that gaggle into any sort of overlord-type Big Brother organization...

/P

where 1984 comes from (5, Insightful)

sdedeo (683762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730814)

As for the 1984 allegories? I suspect that you all-too easily attribute to malice what can be more easily attributed to incompetence, greed, and disparate desires that happen to run in parallel.

I suspect that you all-too easily assume that the erosion of our freedoms is driven mainly by malicious intent.

Re:where 1984 comes from (1)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730994)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

There are a lot of quotes that deal with this, but sometimes we just don't want to trade liberty for safety.

Reviews for cops are like reviews for movies. Who reads them? Who writes them? Are they the same demographic? Have the same attitudes and tastes? Do the reviews get taken far too seriously by people that hire and fire cops? Should they?

--

This needs to get on the front page [slashdot.org] , or write your own story.

Re:1984 (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730902)

I'll keep my liberty thanks, let cops worry about their own safety. They are the ones - who wanted to be cops. Dangerous job and all - as warned, don't complain about it now. I'm supposed to care this makes it hard for some undercover to bust teenage pot smokers? I don't, and don't even bother telling me about "dangerous drug dealers" or any other such FUD - I already know better...

Re:1984 (1)

nunyadambinness (1181813) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731000)

You could be the stupidest person who has ever posted here.

"I'm supposed to care this makes it hard for some undercover to bust teenage pot smokers?"

Obviously you do, since it's you that said "undercover" would be busting. It's really funny to me that you're serious but your post reads like the worst kind of troll.

Kill yourself, and please don't breed before you do.

Re:1984 (1)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730952)

Exactly, it's the same reason you can't radio where the speed traps are, it's dangerous for police officers.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730960)

Undercover cops are nearly always used to investigate victimless crime, because crimes with victims are reported. Personally I don't care if it's harder to continue the war on freedom.

Re:1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730966)

There is a superior need for transparency in any society, but sometimes that has to be balanced against personal safety - including the safety of the cops.
Screw that. Freedom of speech is paramount. If your policing techniques require restrictions on the distribution of public information, change your techniques. You do not get to shut down free speech just because it hurts your ability to work undercover.

Re:1984 (4, Insightful)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730948)

Even if they make sites like this one illegal, they will be hosted elsewhere.
And here we have the crux of the problem. This type of information is public. You got arrested? Its in the public record. The cop's name had better be on the ticket. He better show up at court. Anyone with internet access can get this information, so what is the fundamental difference between the court records and this site? Feedback from the arrested, True or False, is the only real addition. While there may be a valid argument against putting all of these cops' information in one place, the argument that it increases the danger for the police involved doesn't really hold water.
I believe that this additional layer of transparency is helpful. Cops should embrace it, and try to be the best darned cops they can be so they get good ratings on the site. It isn't easy to make an arrest and leave a good impression. But if a cop is a real jerk, there shouldn't be anything preventing someone from posting that on the internet.

Hot or not? (5, Funny)

Izabael_DaJinn (1231856) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730468)

I want a site with all their pictures so I can rate them 1-10 based on looks alone.

Hot-or-not-cop.com.

Re:Insensitive Clod (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730778)

I want a site with all their pictures so I can rate them 1-10 based on looks alone.

American Indians, cowboys, construction workers, leathermen and military types everywhere respond with cries of "Unfair discrimination!" while the guy in the back wearing a trenchcoat says "Hey girlie, would you mind wearing this?"

You are ... a girl, right?

Re:Insensitive Clod (1)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730876)

Why couldn't s/he be a man? Is the concept really that unthinkable for you?

Who the hell is Chief Dyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730486)

And why does his opinion matter?

Re:Who the hell is Chief Dyer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730664)

welcome to teh intarwebs 3.0, we're all authors here

never mind we have no standards, shit by stoopid for stoopid

and they gonna mclove it

At least they didn't mess with the domain itself (1)

hakr89 (719001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730496)

Seeing as the site is back up now, they should just be thankful that godaddy didn't pull the domain registration.

Re:At least they didn't mess with the domain itsel (1)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730616)

Well, not for long....since it made the front page of Slashdot I'm sure he'll exceed his 3 TB limit within the next hour.....

The site is back up now. (5, Informative)

Paeva (1176857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730498)

ratemycop.com is back up now... which makes this story pretty uninteresting.

Re:The site is back up now. (1)

CyberBill (526285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730566)

It doesnt look up to me, looks to me like its redirecting to http://sites.godaddy.com/sites.html [godaddy.com] .

Re:The site is back up now. (2, Informative)

hakr89 (719001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730598)

Your DNS server probably still has the old IP Address cached.

Re:The site is back up now. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730678)

No, it's just that it requires www. http://ratemycop.com/ [ratemycop.com] redirects to http://sites.godaddy.com/sites.html [godaddy.com] , http://www.ratemycop.com/ [ratemycop.com] loads the site properly. Sounds more like some DNS noob worked on their records.

Re:The site is back up now. (1)

Paeva (1176857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730732)

$ host -t a www.ratemycop.com www.ratemycop.com is an alias for ratemycop.com. ratemycop.com has address 205.234.222.18 $ host -t a ratemycop.com ratemycop.com has address 205.234.222.18 Seems like they set the DNS up correctly - caching is to blame for different results. Try http://205.234.222.18/ [205.234.222.18] if the domain doesn't work.

Re:The site is back up now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730914)

That links to an Apache "It works!" page. What's going on here?

Re:The site is back up now. (1)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730788)

It's dead again as of 2:28pm EST.

Re:The site is back up now. (1)

bjmoneyxxx (1227784) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730828)

lol well its up at 13:34 CST

Re:The site is back up now. (5, Funny)

spud603 (832173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730636)

ratemycop.com is back up now... which makes this story pretty uninteresting.
Not for long... slashdot may be even more effective than the host pulling the plug.

NetCraft confirms it!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730524)

RateMyCop.com is taken down by stupid policy!!!

Film at 11!

Big Companies==Arm of Government (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730526)

When a company gets to a certain size, particularly relative to the industry it is in, it begins to associate more and more with various branches of government. Lobbying begins, favors are asked and given, and in the end government branches get their very own wiretap rooms in the offices of the naturally "private company".

GoDaddy is the largest registrar and webhost. Do you think, even for one second, that they would dare sully their good relations with government by allow a "seditious" site like ratemycop.com to exist on their servers? Of course, we can talk about the rights of "private companies" and "free association", but lets face it; that's mostly a crock of shit.

Western governments no longer officially nationalize companies. They now get the companies to come into the fold all by themselves.

Re:Big Companies==Arm of Government (4, Informative)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730956)

Godaddy is not the largest webhost. Please check your facts.

Regards,

Chief Dyer? (2)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730534)

Who the hell is Chief Dyer? Some actor or something? Why should I have heard of them?

Re:Chief Dyer? (3, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730650)

Chief Jerry Dyer, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, voices what sounds like a more honest concern: that officers will face "unfair maligning" by the citizens they serve.

Re:Chief Dyer? (2, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730784)

You mean sort of how sometimes the citizens they serve are unfairly maligned by baseless charges?

My oh my, but why should being hoisted by your own petard not be permitted?

Re:Chief Dyer? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730964)

I don't really think we want policemen who are petarded.

lawsuit? (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730550)

I smell a lawsuit coming on . . . Godaddy 1, RateMyCop.com 0. Good luck to the website owner. I will no longer continue to be a godaddy customer if this is the type if sh*t they are going to do.

Re:lawsuit? (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730690)

I don't see why - they reserve the right to shut down sites they think are up to no good (in their judgement). This is reason enough never to use them.

not enough boobies, that's why (1, Interesting)

themushroom (197365) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730552)

The ONLY valid reasons I can come up with why anyone would want this site down are the exposing of undercover officers (not good for anyone, especially the undercover cops, except the criminals they're infiltrating) and the usual state of online abuse anyone who posts to a forum is subject to (but maybe the David Brame [thenewstribune.com] tragedy could have been better avoided had there been more voicing of his abuses?).

Reasons not valid... oh, those are numerous and probably why the cops freaked and GoDaddy's knees buckled.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (3, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730580)

I disagree. The police have tremendous powers and a despicable thing called: "discretion". On my street, I watched two cops go down the street and give out parking tickets, which is legal. Then, this one guy ran out of his house and complained. He pulled some card out of his wallet and showed it to the cop. The cop responded by tearing up the ticket. Now, what do you think that guy showed the cop to make him reverse a legally given ticket? It's the discretion of the cops that is so unfair: they have the capability to pick and choose who they enforce laws against. This is the primary reason why sites such as this are valid.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (4, Insightful)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730662)

Then, this one guy ran out of his house and complained. He pulled some card out of his wallet and showed it to the cop. The cop responded by tearing up the ticket. Now, what do you think that guy showed the cop to make him reverse a legally given ticket?

Maybe the guy was the driver for a disabled guy, and the card was proof of disabled vehicle exemption to parking restrictions in that area?

Don't be too quick to assume corruption.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (2, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730984)

He was parked across a drive way of another house. I did not relate to you but it was clearly illegal where he was parked and the cops had given him a legal ticket. It was merely discretion.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (2, Interesting)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730718)

Now, what do you think that guy showed the cop to make him reverse a legally given ticket?
Perhaps proof that it was his house? With a tale of how he was just in-and-out, and thus the equivalent of "standing" instead of "parked"?

Some punk kid shoots out my headlight with a BB gun. I'm driving to the store to get a replacement. You're saying I should get pulled over on an equipment violation that I'm in the process of correcting?

How about speeding to the hospital because I've got someone suffering a heart attack in the back seat, and the ambulance would have taken another 10 minutes. I'm doing 50 in a 35 zone with light traffic. The cop should give me a ticket right there? Or perhaps escort me to the hospital THEN ticket me?

Even Rule of Law can be taken too far.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730910)

You can't use retarded examples to make a point. If you get ticketed for having a headlight out you have a certain amount of time to show that you got it fixed without penalty. Take too long, or be a jerk to the cop, and chances are it will cost you. Either way the kid who shot your headlight out is responsible and you can press charges and/or sue for compensation. If you don't know who it was, well, shit happens. Deal with it.

If someone is having a heart attack, you'd be an idiot to pile them in your car and start driving. They'd be dead before you got to the hospital. You call for an ambulance and give CPR until they arrive. Speeding also has a pretty good chance of causing an accident and even more injuries or death so it doesn't make any sense to do so anyway.
Even if you did decide to speed to the hospital, the police aren't going to ram you off the road for a while anyway so you have time to make it to the emergency room. Once there I doubt they'd ticket you knowing the situation.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730924)

Sorry, I didn't mention. They guy had parked half way across a driveway, thereby preventing the owners from leaving. (It was not his own driveway, by the way.) If you have no headlight, you're unsafe so you should be busted. (Why couldn't you have walked or taken a cab?) If you are speeding because you have someone having a heart attack, you should have called an ambulance and what if you killed somebody by speeding? These are all circumstances where a cop's discretion might save you but in my example, it clearly was favoritism.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730772)

Regardless of whether you believe police discretion is fair (it should be, but it isn't, because police officers are people too and therefore by definition unfair) it is necessary for them to do their jobs.

Quite frankly, I don't see a point in a website like this. There are plenty of venues which one can use if one feels that one has been unfairly discriminated against by law enforcement, not the least of which are the courts.

Whining on a website, however, will not serve an effective purpose as you have no means to retaliate against them. You cannot attack the police, or boycott their services, and neither can your twenty five friends. (Well, I suppose you could attack the police, but then you'd most likely be killed.)

Especially anonymously, it seems to serve no purpose other than to allow individuals to air grievances against individuals they did not like or grievances that are not substantial enough to stand up to disciplinary review or court challenge.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (4, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730882)

Short of libel or fire in a crowded theater, I favor no restrictions on free speech. I think the cops can stand this free speech.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730868)

The ONLY valid reasons I can come up with why anyone would want this site down are the exposing of undercover officers (not good for anyone, especially the undercover cops, except the criminals they're infiltrating)

I disagree VEHEMENTLY. I don't think Secret Police belong in any country that claims to be a free society. IMO every police agent should be in uniform with his or her badge prominently displayed. Rather than bring a slashdotting to my site, I'll reproduce a blog posting from September 2005 [mcgrew.info] here in its entirety.

A few weeks ago while I was eating lunch at Top Cat's on Stevenson, I saw something that unnerved me a little bit.
Four middle aged men wearing suits were sitting at a nearby table. One of them wore a pistol in a holster, as if he were a character in a TV western, only without the hat.

Nobody seemed to notice or mind. Of course, I noticed and I minded, but there would have been no way for anybody to notice that I noticed, either. My assumption was that these were cops; they looked like cops.

But I had a nagging worry. What if they weren't cops? What if they were here to rob and kill the restaraunt's workers and patrons?

What if they were cops and another Secret Policeman from another jurisdiction (say, the county or state) mistook them for thugs and bullets started flying?

I didn't even finish my beer that day. As soon as my lunch was done I was out of there. I'm uncomfortable around firearms, having been taught firearm safety and hunting at a young age. I mean, shit happens, you know?

The Secret Police are more commonly referred to in the mainstream media as "undercover agents" or "undercover police," and their sole function is to enforce laws that should never been passed, such as alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or anti-prostitution laws today. Laws that nobody is going to call the police for because nobody is victimized by those crimes that should not be criminal.

"The prostitute is the pimp's victim," the authoritarian anti-freedom busybodies whine. If so, why does this victim wind up in jail? These laws make little sense to me.

Besides, if prostitution were legal I could get laid. But that is beside this post's point. And trying to stick to the point I'm not going to mince words and use euphamisms like "undercover" but call them what they really are: the Secret Police, not at all unlike Soviet Russia's Secret Police or Hitler's Facist Secret Police, or the Secret Police in Communist China.

They're not "undercover agents" dammit, they're Secret Police. 1984 may have been a little late, but Orwell was wrong about one thing- when the city council voted to put the spy cameras on 5th street last week (sorry, I can't find a link) they neglected to vote for any money for the "Big Brother is watching!" posters.

Cameras everywhere and Secret Police. Our freedom has been gone for quite some time now. The 9-11 terrorists only speeded up a process that was already underway.

But back to the Secret Police.

Today I heard on the news that what I feared at Top Cat's happened at the Citrus Bowl yesterday. At the inevitable tailgate party, the Secret Police were (of course) sneakily wandering through the crowd pretending to be football fans when a drunken brawl broke out.

A Secret Policeman intervened, and while trying to break up the fight, drew his weapon and fired into the air. Another cop saw this, assumed logically and rationally that this was an armed drunken brawler and shot him dead, in the back.

He died slowly, coughing up blood. The news reports I saw didn't say whether the cop killer was a uniformed police officer or another Secret Policeman.

Here are a few links to mainstream news about it: The Orlando Sentinal [orlandosentinel.com] , the Tampa Bay Channel 10 News [tampabays10.com] , ABC News [go.com] , and another from the Orlando Sentinal [orlandosentinel.com] .

There should be no secret police. All on-duty police officers should be in uniform, with their badge displayed proudly, not hiding their real identity in shame like some Nazi brown shirt. And when they take off the uniform, they should take off the gun and become an ordinary citizen like anybody else.

But chalk up yet another death to the "war on drugs," or should I say, the war on the American citizenry.

Update (9/28): According to the Chicago Tribune [chicagotribune.com] , A Commonwealth Edison meter reader came up against the Secret Police while reading meters in an alley. The Secret Police demanded identification, and the Tribune reports that the meter reader said "'Let me see you're (expletive) I.D.,'", and the Secret Police then arrested him for "misdemeanor resisting arrest and felony aggravated assault to a police officer."

Rights? What rights?
Here [springfield.il.us] is the link I couldn't find in 2005. I didn't check to see if the links to the news sources were still valid, but I doubt after two years they still are.

Re:not enough boobies, that's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730912)

If someone is posting info about them, then their cover is already blown -- prior to the posting. There is no valid reason for GoDaddy's action. It is inexcusable, and but one in a long line of bad acts.

Is it that unbelievable? (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730572)

At 400,000 page views per day * 30 days = 12,000,000 page views. At 250k per page view, doesn't that equal 3 TB?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem too absurd. Someone tell me where my math is off...

3 TB a month or a day? (2, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730644)

At 400,000 page views per day * 30 days = 12,000,000 page views. At 250k per page view, doesn't that equal 3 TB?

Where did you get the 30 days from?

Re:3 TB a month or a day? (1)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730750)

I am assuming that it's a 3TB/month cap assuming a 30 day month. Of course, I would also think that the counter should run from the first of the month to the first of the month too. Verizon doesn't necessarily do that with my minutes though. Just saying that with approx. 400k hits per day it's possible to hit a 3TB cap at some point.

Re:3 TB a month or a day? (1)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730996)

Actually, with any positive number of hits per day it is possible to hit the 3TB cap at some point...

Re:Is it that unbelievable? (1)

Tack (4642) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730682)

TFA says the site went live on Feb 28 and was taken down on March 11. That's not quite 30 days. Also, where are you getting the 250KB per page view figure? That's pretty huge, even for today's bloated wide web.

Re:Is it that unbelievable? (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730726)

That wasn't the average. He simply said one day had 80,000 views and the next day had 400,000. If had that many for 30 consecutive days then you may be right.

Re:Is it that unbelievable? (1)

l_bratch (865693) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730928)

He really only says he had 8000 views, although admittedly the comma is in a strange place.

Streisand Effect World Tour t-shirt (3, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730582)

How soon before someone starts selling Streisand Effect World Tour t-shirts?

This will earn its place on the list for sure.

Re:Streisand Effect World Tour t-shirt (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730904)

The Streisand effect is a read-only phenomenom. It doesn't work too well when your site is attempting to solicit user submissions, and its only (or most known) domain name is gone.

Go...far away from Go Daddy (1)

Pearson (953531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730592)

In January of last year, GoDaddy took down entire computer security website -- delisting it from DNS -- to get a single, archived mailing list post off the web. On that occasion, at least, it gave the site's owner 60 seconds notice.

At least some good can come from all of this: a reminder to avoid this ISP (as if their terrible ads weren't enough of a warning).

This is not the first time. (5, Informative)

hilather (1079603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730622)

This is not the first time GoDaddy has shut down sites without notice or just cause. Fyodor's seclist was shut down by them quite some time ago.

Our popular SecLists.Org public mailing list archive is back up and running after it was inexcusably shut down with no notice by our soon-to-be-former domain registrar GoDaddy at the behest of MySpace.Com. We believe web site content is the responsibility of the site owner (registrant) and (if that fails) hosting or bandwidth provider. If the whois contact data is valid, registrars shouldn't be involved without a court order.
They even started up a website to document the poor customer service GoDaddy provides http://nodaddy.com/ [nodaddy.com]

Re:This is not the first time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730884)

An interesting account of GoDaddy's dark side, though it somewhat irks me that they consistently refer to ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) as "ICAAN"...

Nothing to hide argument (5, Insightful)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730666)

If cops are not doing anything illegal they have nothing to hide..

We should definitely have websites like this.

Re:Nothing to hide argument (1)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731002)

I think that argument is bunk, but agree that there needs to be oversight on people in authoritative positions. The site is not illegal, it is making use of the Freedom of Information Act to gain public knowledge about police officers. Of course there may be trolls who just post "fuck pigs" or whatever, but it's in essence a review of officers, much like a review of auto shops. If you think one is unreliable and underhanded you will know to cover all your bases if you happen to cross paths with that cop. It's the ones who have that above the law mentality [thenewspaper.com] who are the ones this is designed for. It's weird that from forum that cops are worried about people having their public information, yet at their fingertips is a database of private information, that has the potential to be abused. (and to save some people the trouble, this isn't bashing all cops so don't post "not all cops are like that" responses)

We could call it !Cops, or "Crooks" (1)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730704)

With most of the Police Chases I, II, III, IV,... there always seems to be a desire to portray the police as infallible, reliable, honest, level headed, better then everyone. While I do like cops, I know that this is an exaggeration. Is there any reason why public domain footage of police stops, copter cams, dash cams, couldn't be aired on a show, regardless if whether or not it paints the police as "good guys"?

Bandwidth explanation reasonable (3, Interesting)

Rampantbaboon (946107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730706)

AFAIK this site went down after it was mentioned on Fark last night. That could easily surpass the limit for a GoDaddy hosted site.

Godaddy is not so good. (1)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730716)

I've been using them for domain hosting and e-mail hosting. Their e-mail service is letting a ton of spam through and rejecting at least 4 of my customers for reasons that are, at best, dubious. I have had those customers send to me at gmail and they have not had trouble.

I'm moving off godaddy.

Re:Godaddy is not so good. (1)

stabiesoft (733417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730872)

GoDaddy has a eclectic method of deciding what is/is not spam. I had to have a customer force them to white list me before I could get anything in. After I was put on the "ok" list, everything goes thru. They have been the only email server I've ever had problems with.

A Bit of History. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730720)

They pull the same crap on MOOTYkins and 4chan long long ago.

Get Involved as well! (4, Interesting)

scenestar (828656) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730730)

become a participant for http://www.copwatch.org/ [copwatch.org] .

All you gotta do is just simply watch the police go about their usuall routine. If they threaten you to leave remind them that they are public servants and that you are fully within the scope of the law if doing so

Go on and observe, It is your patriotic duty!

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should (2, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730738)

The site is a stupid, terrible idea anyway. I'm personally aware of many people who have an irrational hatred for the police and police officers, simply because of what they are.

Yes, you have bad cops. You've also got a lot of good cops who would be harassed and defamed by users of this site. Frankly, it's as stupid as that site that lets high school kids make unsubstantiated complaints about their teachers. Just because you have free speech, doesn't mean that you can use it to make a person's life hell.

Our police forces deserve their privacy! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730762)

It is dangerous to let the public know whether or not someone is an officer of the law. The minute you start revealing names are badge numbers of law enforcement officers, they are suddenly more responsible for their actions!

If only there was some way to have a police force that was "secret"... You know, the kind of force that operated outside the standard boundaries of law. We could call them a "Secret Police"... I like the sound of that.

Re:Our police forces deserve their privacy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730888)

+1 meta-Godwin
 

legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730818)

"Chief Dyer wants to get legislation passed that would make RateMyCop.com illegal..."

The taxpayer citizens of America (employers of Chief Dyer) want to get legislation passed that would make shutting down websites by an ISP without an order from a judge illegal...

you can do better... (4, Informative)

one_red_eye (962010) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730852)

... than GoDaddy. It just goes to show if you're not running a website that shows all people in a light and happy and cheery manner, don't use GoDaddy hosting or GoDaddy DNS registration services. They've interfered with other sites as well, if they cannot shutdown your website, they'll just turn off the DNS resolution for your IP address like they did with Seclists.Org http://seclists.org/nmap-hackers/2007/0000.html [seclists.org]

GoDaddy is the Self-Proclaimed Internet Police and just because they have the ability to interfere with certain websites they think it's OK. Of course they'll argue Terms of Service, but no company should be able to interfere with one's First Amendment rights. Also why should they want to disable websites in this manner anyway? All the negative press must affect their profit margin.

it's kind of like that (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730930)

who's a rat? site

i forget the name, slashdot had an story abouth it here awhile back. that site that kept track of snitches and federal witnesses that also got shut down

that site and this ratemycop site is not in any way an empowerment of the common man, it is an empowerment of the kind of constantly cranky loser you find in every small town, and it gives voice to the criminal element too: tracking cops, slandering cops, etc. it is not a control method over bad cops, it is a tool for slander and unfound rumor. it's a way fo rinternet trolls to spread lies

the truth is, you have control over your cops: via your government. yes, there are those alientated from their government. for many reasons. many of those reason being the crank's own bad ideas and bad social skills. but if a cop is genuinely bad, the government will get rid of him or her eventually, through regular channels, as regular people sound off about any mistreatment the cop makes

not through this site

so yes, close the site down. sure you can say godaddy may not have closed the site down in the most proper procedue, but the site should definitely be closed down, if you have any understanding of ethics

1-480-505-8855 (1)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730954)

Slashdot the phones over at GoDaddy.

Doesn't matter (1)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730958)

In a few years, they'd just take away the ability to write negative reviews in order to "improve the user experience."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?