Washington Police: 'We Have To Respond With Smartphones Almost As Fast As We Respond With Guns'
from the say-what? dept
"If you see something, say something" is the (hilariously trademarked) phrase that has become something of a ridiculous "spy on your neighbors" cliche in the years following September 11, 2001. Law enforcement types use it all the time. However, apparently, they don't want you to say (or, more specifically, tweet) something, if the "something" you see happens to be the police themselves. We've written so many stories about uninformed police insisting that it's illegal to photograph or videotape them in action -- even though they're completely wrong about that. Amazingly, even the Justice Department has found itself constantly reminding police that it's perfectly legal for citizens to photograph and videotape police.However, over in Washington State, the police are apparently taking a preemptive approach to citizen criminal-enablers and their mobile phones. They've kicked off a marketing campaign telling people not to share photos of SWAT teams and police on social media.
Police in Washington state are asking the public to stop tweeting during shootings and manhunts to avoid accidentally telling the bad guys what officers are doing.They claim, of course, that this is about not tipping off criminals about what's going on:
The "TweetSmart" campaign began in late July by a coalition of nine agencies, including the Washington state patrol and the Seattle police, and aims to raise awareness about social media's potential impact on law enforcement.
"All members of the public may not understand the implications of tweeting out a picture of SWAT team activity," said Nancy Kolb, who oversees the Alexandria, Virginia, organization's Center for Social Media.But that seems ridiculous and unsupported in so many ways. First of all, it assumes that the "criminals" being gone after with SWAT teams are actively watching Twitter for the latest reports of SWAT teams mobilizing. Hell, you'd think it would be a lot "safer" for everyone else in the area to find out that there's something going down and to maybe stay inside until it's over.
"It's a real safety issue, not only for officers but anyone in the vicinity," Kolb said.
It seems a hell of a lot more likely that this campaign is really an underhanded way to shut down the public's civil liberties in overseeing what the police are doing by photographing and videotaping them. In fact, a spokesman for the Washington State police, Bob Calkins, more or less admits that this is all about stopping people from taping the police:
"We have to respond with a smart phone almost as fast as we respond with a gun," said Calkins, who along with Kolb commended the Seattle Police Department for its use of social media.That seems rather chilling, especially given the number of times we've seen police claim that a phone might be a gun. Police across the country need to realize that they serve the public. Treating smartphones as guns and encouraging censorship doesn't seem to be achieving those goals.
Indeed, as reporter Mónica Guzmán notes about all of this:
When any entity that holds power over us encourages us to limit our expression for any reason, it is probably better for us to err on the side of expressing more than it would want than less.Guzmán also counters the narrative that the Washington Police want to spread. Calkins, the guy who talked about responding to a phone like a gun, claims that his feelings on this date back to the well-known manhunt in Lakewood five years ago:
"I saw it personally as far back as Lakewood," said State Patrol spokesman Bob Calkins, referring to social media traffic during the manhunt for a man wanted for killing four officers in Washington state in 2009.The AP article says that this event contributed to the police's determination that they need to train people to shut up on Twitter. Yet Guzmán remembers the event very differently:
At the time, people speculated online about why police were combing a Seattle park while a search was on for the man, Calkins said.
During the 2009 manhunt of Lakewood, Wash., police shooter Maurice Clemmons, Seattleites were scared. Neighbors gave each other peace of mind by sharing what they saw, where, and where danger seemed to be headed, in real time. All that buzz drew attention to the effort, resulting in hundreds of tips to police from all over and a sense of unity that brought the city together in support of our officers.In other words, seeing the police and tweeting about it actually helped that situation, rather than hurt it. While the police in Washington may claim they're just trying to keep people safe by asking them to not tweet what they see, it really seems that the safety they're protecting is their own reputation.
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
Filed Under: censorship, guns, police, seattle, smartphones, social media, washington
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cue the Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue the Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue the Streisand Effect
An advertising campaign asking people to not exercise their rights is treading dangerously close to that line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message to Washington Police (and cops everywhere)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calkins said police agencies can do their own preventative maintenance with social media by getting information out there when crime is happening.
"We have to respond with a smart phone almost as fast as we respond with a gun," said Calkins, who along with Kolb commended the Seattle Police Department for its use of social media.
With context, I think it's clear Calkins is saying that the police need to get information out as fast as they respond with a gun. The campaign might still be "an underhanded way to shut down the public's civil liberties" but don't take quotes and change the meaning of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could be right, but I'm not convinced of it. I took the meaning to be "we have to respond [to a situation] with a smartphone almost as fast as we [respond to a situation] with a gun."
If you read it your way... I'm not sure it makes sense. Police shouldn't be "responding with a gun" for the most part. That's only in extreme cases that a police officer should take out a gun. So if that's the meaning... then it would suggest they should rarely make use of the smartphone.
Either way... it doesn't make much sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you could have stopped there . . . :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True - but when they do, it's usually swift. He didn't say "as often as", he said "as fast as".
Yeah, that's one possible reading. Obviously that's not the way several of us AC's took it, but I can't say you're definitely wrong, since they are possibly responding to AND with a smartphone.
But even if he did mean it that way, that's not to say that they're responding WITH a gun - the context makes it clear that they're responding with information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misleading title
That's the article title, but the actual quote is slightly different:
WITH a smart phone. Not TO a smart phone. If you read it in the context of the paragraph above and below it in the AP article, it's clear that this particular sentence is talking about getting information to the public to prevent speculation. I doubt many here would disagree with that goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misleading title
Responded this here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140815/06365428223/washington-police-we-have-to-respond-to- smartphones-almost-as-fast-as-we-respond-to-guns.shtml#c117
I don't see how that interpretation makes much sense, but I could be wrong. The paragraph above it is entirely the AP paraphrasing, not what he actually said. So I focused on what he actually said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compared to the article's title:
"We have to respond TO SMARTPHONES almost as fast we respond TO GUNS".
In the AP article, the "We have to respond with a smart phone almost as fast as we respond with a gun" quotation is preceded by: "Calkins said police agencies can do their own preventative maintenance with social media by getting information out there when crime is happening."
Calkins is referring to police use of social media, not citizen's use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Responded to this above a couple times, but then his quote would make no sense. Because police should rarely be making use of their guns -- and so there he's saying they should respond with smartphones even less rarely? Huh?
Perhaps he just spoke in a really clunky way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps it's clunky phrasing, but I think it makes less sense than police responding to someone taking picture with the same speed they respond to a criminal gun-shooting incident.
In every video of police harassing bystanders taking video with cellphones that has been linked to on this site, does it look to you like the way police would respond to a gunman? Just by harassing the gunman then arresting the gunman for interfering with police activity or whatever? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Give 'em some time, they'll get there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In any case, deliberately changing the quote for the headline is misleading at best and unethical at worse. As someone who contributed to your Beacon campaign, I'm disappointed and expect more responsible articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree completely. At the very least, the quotation should be corrected in the headline of this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've changed the headline. The original was shortened to better fit, and to represent the basics of what I believed he was saying, as I've explained. You've presented a compelling argument that he may have meant it differently so I've changed it -- but it was certainly not designed to be misleading. I apologize if you found it to be that way.
[ 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 ]
Instead of condeming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice fantasy you've got there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure about that quote
He says "with", not "to", so he's not talking about responding *to* a smart phone. It's difficult to know exactly what that quote is saying, actually (I can't find it in context anywhere). My bets guess is that the police need to be quick to respond to things on social media.
Of course this is one of those cases where society generally accepts that the risk of helping the few people who are the subject of the action is outweighed by the benefit of helping the vast majority of people who aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure about that quote
Which is almost as bad as stopping people reporting on what they can see. It would require a police officer on the scene to report quickly, and if the situation is dangerous they should have more important things to do that watch and respond to Twitter and Facebook posts. Anybody back at the station following the action closely enough to report accurately should also have better things to do, like keeping control of the situation.
If they are doing their job in the correct manner, they can respond latter when things calm down, and they have accurate information to use. If things are going bad, the best response from the authorities is often silence until they have pieced together what actually happened. Trying to make the police look good is only likely to inflame the situation if things have gone bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not sure about that quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not sure about that quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Seattle Police not "Washington" Police
Also keep in mind that the Seattle Police are still under Federal oversight for their violent abuses against citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Seattle Police not "Washington" Police
Article actually says it's both...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Seattle Police not "Washington" Police
The "TweetSmart" campaign is "by a coalition of nine agencies, including the Washington state patrol and the Seattle police". The specific quote "We have to respond with a smart phone almost as fast as we respond with a gun" is by a State Patrol spokesman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In less than 10 years we are going to have contact lens that can record what people are looking at, how are the cops going to respond then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvrDKlV2Kw0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You all have the legal and constitutional right to film these pigs whenever you want to providing you do not step over a crime zone area which has been roped/taped off.
Standing on the sidewalk across the street, etc is not getting in their way and from here you can take photos,films and there is not one thing they can do legally.
If they have arrested you and/or confiscated your device then talk to a lawyer and sue them for the maximum amount allowed.
Best SCENARIO:
When filming the asshole pigs have some one stand away from you out of sight even keeping a surveilance on you so if they do harass you a visual record will be had which you can use in a Court of Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel sorry for the fool who gets their intelligence information from strangers on Twitter while they're on the run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]