NY Police Chief Ray Kelly Says The Boston Bombing Takes Privacy 'Off The Table'
from the not-that-there-was-much-left-on-table... dept
In light of the recent Boston bombing, NYPD Police Chief Ray Kelly is now restructuring some sort of nonexistent deal with New Yorkers, issuing a clawback on their civil liberties. According to Kelly, the Boston Marathon bombing means privacy has been "taken off the table."
“I'm a major proponent of cameras,” Kelly said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table.”Some of you may take issue with Kelly's assumption that the privacy "offer" has been rescinded (or that it's truly his to rescind). Well, guess what. Your opinion means nothing, at least not to the chief of the NYPD.
“The people who complain about it, I would say, are a relatively small number of folks, because the genie is out of the bottle,” Kelly said. “People realize that everywhere you go now, your picture is taken.”Ray Kelly doesn't care much for civil liberties. He's already been questioned about the NYPD's "anti-terrorism" efforts (aided by the FBI), largely comprised of various (failed) efforts to infiltrate the Muslim community. While it's failed to produce any terrorists, it has managed to tread all over the community's civil liberties. During that discussion, a Brooklyn councilman bluntly stated that the counterterrorism efforts looked to be based on "profiling" rather than on any "real leads."
He's also been queried about the notorious "stop and frisk" program, something that largely targets young minorities (87% of all stops are non-white) while failing to produce much in terms of results (only 1 in 10 stops result in a summons or arrest; weapons are only discovered in 0.2% of the stops).
Kelly has defended these two programs with a pair dubious claims. On the anti-terrorist side, he proudly states that the city has not been attacked by terrorists since the 9/11 tragedy. Considering the average person is 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, this claim is nothing more than Kelly attempting to take credit for a statistically improbable event not happening. It's about as meaningless as claiming no one has been struck by lightning twice while under his watch.
As for the "stop and frisk" program, Kelly claims the reduction in crime speaks for itself. But as NYCLU Director Donna Lieberman pointed out, there's precious little evidence this program did anything more than tag along for the ride as crime decreased across the nation.
Kelly nevertheless claims the program has saved thousands of lives during the last decade by reducing violent crime, an assertion that Lieberman calls "demonstrably false." She notes that homicides were already falling in New York before Kelly launched the stop-and-frisk program in 2003 and that since then they have declined more quickly in other big cities.Speaking of "speaking for itself," this quote is allegedly Ray Kelly's goal for "stop and frisk."
According to [State Sen. Eric] Adams, Kelly "stated that he targeted or focused on that group because he wanted to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police."So, we already know Kelly's general attitude towards the rights of the citizens under his
Kelly acts like increased surveillance is a forgone conclusion after the Boston bombing. The investigation's most useful images and video were captured by individuals and private businesses, not by PD cameras, something surveillance advocates like Kelly keep conveniently forgetting. He claims only a few will complain and the rest will just fall in line. But where is he hearing this cry for more police and government surveillance?
As far as I can tell, there's been no public outcry demanding that the police, FBI, etc. do something to prevent another tragedy. The only voices I've heard are a variety of self-contained echo chambers who hear only the reverberations of their preconceived notions.
Kelly certainly likes hearing "privacy is off the table," even if the words had to originate from his own mouth. He said it because he truly believes it. But it serves a secondary purpose as well, something I'm sure Kelly is fully aware of. Making this statement as the resident police chief in the nation's largest city sends the message to like-minded law enforcement entities that now is the time to expand surveillance efforts. After all, who's going to stop you? A "few complainers?"
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ray Kelly wants to terrorize you into submission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
Not to mention cameras with his family members all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
In other words, law enforcement's responsibility in terms of the Boston bombers was to catch them after the crime occurred and then to deal with them. And look, law enforcement did just that. So why is there a need for more cameras? Why is there a need to reduce privacy?
I say let's make a deal. The only way privacy is off the table is if absolute security from crime is provided. If they can provide that, then maybe we can allow a loss in privacy. And I mean absolute security. No Boston-like bombers can ever occur again. No homicides, 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter. No robbing, stealing, thieving, or any of the like any more. I should be able to leave buckets of money in plain view on my front lawn and not have to worry at all about any of it going missing.
If that's not the level of security that can be provided, then privacy is not off the table.
That is what Franklin meant by his famous quote. You don't deserve safety if you give up liberty, because you can't get safety by giving up liberty. Thus, if you're willing to trade liberty for nothing (which is what you get from the trade) then you don't deserve liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
Cameras on 24/7 if you do not think We care about Privacy !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/greg-kelly-rape-charges_n_1261431.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And honestly, by the time there's enough surveillance to stop crimes before they take place the Govt will be bankrupt. There must be a balance between surveillance, due process, education of the young and punishment to avoid crimes.
If there's enough certainty that one will be judged and punished for their crime it'll be a deterrent to most criminal-wannabes. The ones determined will commit crimes regardless of how much you squeeze the general population. This is a classic case of punishing an entire population because of the actions of a few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold it...
Further, that surveillance program is funded by the very people that he is protecting: the rich and powerful.
So he is correct in saying that he wants less privacy for the people that are out of his jurisdiction. The problem is, that's everyone that isn't making millions a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm
I swear we might as well just spend 5K per toilet in the NYPD buildings as the results will be the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/boston_police_facial_recognition_software_didnt_help/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really there is only one appropriate response to this and it comes from Benjamin Franklin -
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Idiots?
A law enforcement official pushing to expand his powers after a shocking crime is about as "idiotic" as a guy going to his boss for a raise when whatever he's working on succeeds fantastically. It's all about waiting for the opportunity.
So I'd say that "opportunists" is the better word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An expansion of law enforcement powers almost always comes at the expense of the rights of the citizenry. Getting a raise from your boss doesn't necessarily mean your taking money away from your coworkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, in the case of the chief, it should go without saying, but I suppose it doesn't, that this power grab and his oppressive attitude is a bad thing, so let me say it. It is bad that the chief takes this opportunity to gather more power and shrink the liberties of the citizens at large.
A worker who asks for a raise at the right time is also clever, but what he does is in no way an oppression of the people, or even his co-workers. The similarity is the timing, that is to say, sensing that there is an opportunity and taking it, whether for good (getting a raise) or bad (increased surveillance of the people).
Again, I'm sorry that I was unclear. I merely meant that the chief was no idiot. An evil not-idiot. I should have been clearer. One can be a good not-idiot, but one can also be a bad not-idiot. The chief is the bad guy here, not the wise worker. Wise worker OK, chief bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the quote above about stop and frisk:
Aside from 'use of violence', how exactly are they different? Why can't people realize these that by us reacting as we do, we only encourage more terrorist acts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correlation != Causation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout
That will leave him to either reconsider his position or face the concequences of taking privacy "off the table." i.e. evernyone will know when he's home, when he's gone, who comes over when he's gone, etc. I'd say he'd crack in 2 weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wont' go near
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
That's what's most disturbing about his admission of ignoring their pleas for the sake of their suppression of civil rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the chief is also incorrect as to stated facts
that was an attack. just because it didn't succeed because of improper bomb setup doesn't mean the attack didn't occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they'd have greater success by targeting 60+ year old white women on the upper East Side?
.....while failing to produce much in terms of results (only 1 in 10 stops result in a summons or arrest;....
Wait, every hundred stops nets 10 criminals. It's actually 1 in 8 according to th NY ACLU ( "Stop-and-Frisk Data". New York Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved 20 March 2013.) That's way, way more than a random occurrence. Far better than sobriety checkpoints. Sounds like it works.
....weapons are only discovered in 0.2% of the stops).
Ok, 2 per thousand stops. How many thousand stops have been made? Let's see, in 2011, there were 684,000 stops. : Translation: 1368 weapons off the street each year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Something tells me that at the heart of that that "legal muster" is irrelevant at best. That or someone needs to get better lawyers.
1/12 of the population searched because a guy with a badge says so? Yeah, someone is lighting their pipe with some ripped up founding documents I think. That's just horrifying. Safety is just not the first thought that crosses my mind when death by cop is more likely than death by bomb. And if you're not living the freedom you thought you were I think it might be about time to choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm
Soon possession of the text of the Constitution will be considered evidence against you.
NY police chief is a fucking cunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a so called public servant says shit like this he should be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Does it?
Not at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy as we know it will die, we are able to record every moment of our lifes today, there is not a place on earth that there is not a recording device available and the tools to mine this information will be from the government and from the public, the government will try to piece our lifes together and the people will track and piece the lifes of government personnel.
So yeah privacy is off the table at least the privacy we conceive today, that one is dead and gone, the thing is, is not just the government with the ability to keep an eye on things now is everyone for better or worst this is times we live in.
This will be a battle to reestablish boundaries and see what works and what doesn't.
Done it right loss of "privacy" will mean nothing, and that is the people who can take that privacy away without exposing others to bad experiences as much as possible will be the people in control of that new environment, no matter what others say, if people don't feel the negative impact, if it cannot be felt it will be a fairy tale, which is why law enforcement probably will never get that kind of approval ever because what they do in fact affects people in a very real sense and that is why nobody will give them control over their "privacy".
End of crazy talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hypocrisy of this statement:
I would love for an enterprising journalist to ask Kelly about when NYC gets attacked again if he will then admit that these programs are a failure. I doubt he would even entertain such a line of questioning for it gets right at the heart of how those in authority set up these arguments in a way that no matter the outcome they, and the programs they spearhead, end up on the winning side of it regardless while the people loose. I would wager that he, like others before him, would instead double down and claim that the only failing of these programs post another attack is that they didn't go far enough in their efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I have a rock here that keeps away tigers. Don't believe me? Do you see any tigers around? Now what are my offers? $10 from the large balding man in the white shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They film us and it's fine.
We film them and it's obstruction.
I'm certainly glad that people like this are in charge of "protecting us" /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Specious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silent anger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chief Ray Kelly Says Privacy 'Off The Table'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now suspect #2 never had a gun, despite the alleged gunfight at the boat.
Now the suspects' uncle turns out to have CIA affiliations.
Now there is video showing suspect #2 with his backpack on after the bombing.
AND- they want to "take privacy off the table", essentially institute martial law when they please, and have a backdoor to everyone's internet communications?
SOMETHING is VERY wrong in this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to lie with statistics
"Only" 1 in 10 stops resulting in a summons or arrest? That actually doesn't sound all that bad to me. The ratio of people who are criminals and have done something serious worthy of arrest to people in the country is far lower than 1:10, so if they're making 1:10, they're really beating the odds. And when you consider that the program is still fairly new, they're beating the odds on their first attempt!
Sounds like a successful system to me, to be perfectly honest. Let them refine their methods a little based on data and feedback, and you'll see that 1:10 ratio improve soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to lie with statistics
"The New York City stop-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons."
I think they need to work on their reasonable suspicion if they're wrong 90% of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Ray, come and get me
http://suburbansheepdog.blogspot.com/2013/05/obstructing-justice.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Off the table...our rights are not yours to take away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy is "off the table: - excellent news!
What's that, tax-eating scumbag Kelly? One law for us peons, another for the 'public servants' who suck at the tax tit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]