Law Enforcement Wants Google To Cripple Waze Because It Lets The Mean Old Public 'Stalk' Police Officers

from the I-can-see-you-parked-right-there dept

Tue, Jan 27th 2015 9:36am — Karl Bode

If you've tinkered with Waze at all you know the app allows users to post road conditions, lane closures, police locations, and other pertinent driving hazards with a heavy emphasis on the gamification of that information (i.e., you get points for reporting accurate information). I generally find the feature to be marginally useful if not annoying. Police move positions so quickly I find that crowdsourcing isn't particularly effective. As such, I generally just stick to my long-standing practice of flirting with a speed that's around six to seven miles over the speed limit (I know, I'm an absolute wild man).

Eager to protect a revenue generator, law enforcement has long wanted speed trap warning disabled in the app, though as we've noted, warning others of speed traps (whether that's flashing your lights or otherwise) is effectively protected speech. With previous arguments not working so well, the latest claim by the law enforcement community is that Waze is dangerous for police because it effectively facilitates stalking of officers. Or at least that's the argument being pushed forth by the National Sheriffs Association in their quest to make Waze much less useful to motorists:

"Sheriff Mike Brown of Bedford County, Virginia, said the police-reporting feature, which he called the "police stalker,'' presents a danger to law enforcement. "The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action,'' said Brown, who also serves as the chairman of the National Sheriffs Association technology committee."

Of course, the police officers being "stalked" are parked in obvious line of sight on public motorways, and if a mentally-unstable person did want to cause problems, it's not too hard to find an opportunity. At the same time, the citizens using the app are simply having a perfectly-legal conversation. Combined with the fact that the quoted officers can't be bothered to cite a single instance where this sort of technology has ever been a problem in this regard, that's a pretty feeble justification for crippling an application by any measure. Regardless, it appears Google has already been making concessions; when it started porting Waze data into Google Maps earlier this year, police reporting data was notably absent.

Whatever, just as long as we're not talking about how much Waze location data gets shared with the law enforcement and intelligence communities, right?

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: free speech, google maps, gps, information, law enforcement, navigation, police, stalking, waze
Companies: google, waze

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 7:44am

You first
Police defend license plate readers by claiming that the information they gather, what plate went past what location when, is publicly available. If they're going to use that defense for plate readers, then unless they care to be blatant hypocrites, they cannot then turn around and claim that police location data is suddenly private and needs to be hidden.

If they can watch us, we should have the same ability to watch them, and if they object to being watched, then they shouldn't be doing any watching of others themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: You first
  here here...
  
  unfortunately the police neither care about the people, nor do they see themselves as beholden to us.
  
  to the police, were are all just criminals they do not have enough evidence for arrest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DOlz (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:57am
    
    Re: Re: You first
    "to the police, were are all just criminals they do not have enough evidence for arrest.”
    
    Well that’s fair. More and more of us are thinking of the police as criminals with nice uniforms.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: You first
  "unless they care to be blatant hypocrites"
  
  That's the problem, they don't care...that they are
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re: You first
    True, but like most hypocrites, they tend not to like it when people point it out, so you use that dislike to hopefully guide their behavior a bit into more acceptable realms.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: You first
  That is a very good point. But does that work in reverse? Can we claim that police can't constitutionally use license plate readers while also claiming that *their* location is public?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 1:58pm
    
    Re: Re: You first
    A good point. I think we can; there's a presumption of transparency in government and a presumption of privacy for private citizens. These presumptions can be used to differentiate the cases.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - M. Alan Thomas II (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: You first
      Also, it's a difference between tracking that can, in aggregate, reveal very private and personal information vs. knowing simply that some generic officer is performing their office in a particular location today with no tracking over time or of personal lives.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Em, 27 Jan 2015 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re: You first
    The Supreme Court has ruled that they have no expectation of privacy when performing their duties to the public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:41am

I'm much more afraid of the police stalking me than they are of anyone stalking them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dfed (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:44am

I read "Danger to police" but what I heard was "Danger to Police revenues."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re:
  I read "Danger to police" but what I heard was "Danger to Police revenues."
  
  What read is "Holy crap, the cops are pansies!" They're armed to the teeth, wearing body armour, driving armoured vehicles (MRAPs?), and we're a threat to them? Come on!
  
  This is not a new thing. I've been hearing police complain about how *everything* is against them for decades. Yet fifteen(?) year olds are shot in traffic stops, instead of cops thinking instead. Lay out a spike strip to stop that stolen car, you idiots! You don't need to be shooting teenagers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    'You reap what you sow'.
    
    They've spent how many years seeing, and treating, the public as though every last member of it was an enemy, nothing but vicious criminals just barely restraining themselves from attacking the cops, and therefor who need to be treated as much?
    
    Treat someone like that, in word and in action, and yeah, you're not going to be making many friends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:44am

Never trust anything the NSA says.

What, this is an article about the National Sheriff's Association this time? Well, the warning still applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:56am

I find the speed trap reports very valuable. Not because I like speeding, with very few exceptions I'm right at the speed limit or below it (no, I don't 'cheat' with the 10% margin) but rather because sometimes you get tickets because you are busy paying attention to more pressing matters such as where you need to turn, adverse conditions on the road/street, some bad driver nearby etc. I got one of such tickets after 10 years clean of any ticket whatsoever.

Besides, the drivers that intentionally speed will have it embedded in their GPS devices, it's not hard to find maps with probable speed traps loaded in them (cops aren't very creative with their stuff and tend to set up the things in the same spot every time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:00am

Maybe if the police don't want people to hate them they should stop being assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:05am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, the police have a rather unique profession.
  
  Can you name any other profession where one is required to swear an oath, and immediately upon swearing the oath, do everything within their power to subvert the spirit of the oath while staying as narrowly as possible within the letter of the oath?
  
  After all, that pesky bill of rights makes their job so much more difficult.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    They swear it ironically.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tomczerniawski, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    I can totally think of another profession like that.
    
    The president of the United States.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    politician?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 9:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Politician and/or government employee.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:13am

If the goal is public safety, Waze helps in that regard. People slow down, avoid traffic jams and debris in the road, etc. If the goal is revenue, the police need new goals.

Police also need to stop being such pussies. They're armed, armored, and (semi) trained. Fear for their safety shouldn't be an issue anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  Actually it's the law in Virginia and many other states. You must move over a lane (or slow way down) when passing emergency vehicles on the shoulder.
  
  We're just helping people follow the law (and make the Police measurably safer)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 28 Jan 2015 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And then they complain about rubberneckers. What are citizens supposed to do when the law dictates that they behave in such a way?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:20am

I wonder...
...how many cops use this app when off duty. After all one cannot flash their badge until after they've been pulled over.

Alternatively, this may make it easier to find where the good doughnuts are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:24am
  
  Re: I wonder...
  What makes you think you need an app for that?
  
  http://imgur.com/ZIqAw4S
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re: I wonder...
  My brother-in-law is a cop and brags about getting out of DUIs by flashing his badge. Getting pulled over isn't necessarily an issue for an off-duty cop who breaking the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 1:28pm
    
    Re: Re: I wonder...
    Do you tell him the truth? That he's a bad cop?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 2:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I wonder...
      "Do you tell him the truth? That he's a bad cop?"
      
      Wouldn't that be like going around saying "water is wet"? I mean, isn't that expected?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Padpaw (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: I wonder...
    sounds like he could use a good dosage of swatting to humble him
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I wonder...
      Not with my sister or nieces and nephews in the house, no.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:32am

Slowing down for a speed trap?
Isn't that the whole point -- to get people to obey the speed limit?

No tickees, no revenues. Oops!

Just like those red-light cameras, the goal was revenue, not safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tomczerniawski, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:34am

We shouldn't blame the cops, or mock them for wanting this app disabled. They're expressing exactly the same fear we are expressing: the fear that technology might be used to track us, and harm us.

If anything, this is an opportunity to build bridges between groups of law enforcement officers, and privacy activists. We're all equally endangered by out-of-control surveillance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:41am
  
  Re:
  Nope. I appreciate your attempt to find a middle road here, but there isn't one. Police officers aren't at all endangered by public surveillance unless you mean that they're in danger of being caught breaking the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  " They're expressing exactly the same fear we are expressing: the fear that technology might be used to track us, and harm us."
  
  There is a HUGE difference, though. We're talking about the police while they are on duty. There is no personal privacy implication about knowing where a public servant is when they are performing their job.
  
  The technology that tracks us is tracking us in our personal lives, not on the job. Notice that people are a lot more forgiving about on-the-job surveillance than off-the-job surveillance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 10:51am

I use it to stalk and snipe cops because I'm a criminal and hate them that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:15am

Obligatory
If they're not doing anything wrong, why are they worried?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:32am

Hmmm. What's That Old Saw...
"We can watch them. If they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about."

Yeah, that was it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yankinwaoz (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:35am

BS. If someone wants to find cops to hurt, then all they have to do is call 911 and wait for them to come. They aren't going to bother with Waze.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:36am

Next Up, A Ban on Eyes
Tragically, in NYC two policemen were shot last month by a deranged lunatic. He saw the cruiser, moved up and assassinated both officers.

In committing the crime, he made use of his eyes and vision. These tools can be used to see police cars when they are stopped at roadsides and other locations, thus, the National Sheriffs Association is petitioning people to remove their eyes, which pose a marked risk to officer safety.

The data doesn't lie:
Cases in which eyes have been used to harm officers: basically all
Cases in which Waze has been used to harm officers: basically zero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re: Next Up, A Ban on Eyes
  You lookin' at me? ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME? You are under arrest, for looking at me.
  
  (Sounds like all the videos on photographyisnotacrime.com, so it probably isn't far off.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 27 Jan 2015 @ 11:43am

Odd that the ones that track us are the ones with the guns, but yet they are 'afraid'??!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:01pm

I dont understand, how does waze PRE.VENT, us, from being stalked, by the police
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
W Klink (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:13pm

New feature request
Waze should add the ability to report livestock on the road, like horses, cows, and pigs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JohnnyRotten (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 12:59pm

People will just circumvent...
Oh look a road hazard! a place... a camera... a gas price... a map issue... etc, etc.

Google could lock down the reporting functionality of the app, which would just drive people to adopt the next app that wasn't crippleware.

The eye cannot commit a trespass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2015 @ 1:06pm

"The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action,''

Litigation or statutory action? Like what?

Are they really going to claim that they were parked in a public place and because of this app, people noticed them?

You know, sometimes I wish they would start with the litigation, and get themselves severely bitch-slapped by Google's lawyers, while being laughed out of the courtroom. After all, he seems so confident that he has a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 4:08pm
  
  Re:
  You know, sometimes I wish they would start with the litigation, and get themselves severely bitch-slapped by Google's lawyers, while being laughed out of the courtroom. After all, he seems so confident that he has a point.
  
  Yet G. appears to agree. They're censoring their app because cops are afraid of those (us; their employers) they're supposed to protect and serve.
  
  It's a strange, strange world we live in, master Jack.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 1:51pm

Ticket quotas
This isn't about bank robbers or the safety of the police. It is simply that people slow down to the speed limit when they know that there are police around, resulting in fewer speeding tickets, which cut into the ticket quotas that the police are expected to issue. $$ pure and simple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Padpaw (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 2:26pm

serfs should be seen and not heard. if a cop tells you to so something you should do it or you deserve to get beaten for your lack of respect.

There is your basic police officer mentality in a nutshell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rapnel (profile), 27 Jan 2015 @ 4:14pm

I don't know about everyone else but I'm growing pretty tired of the "needs of law enforcement" mantra. We choose to be governed by the rule of law and not by and for the ease of law enforcement. Those are the wrong rules. If you can not fight crime without further elevating the already disproportionately elevated "police powers" because "hard" then we have a problem and people are going to start choosing .. differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonCow, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:08am

The opposite argument is equally valid: Waze saves police officer lives by keeping them alert and aware of the fact that they could be stalked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]