Many FBI Agents Find Racial Profiling Useless, But Those Up Top Feel It's Just A Failure To Get Everyone On Board

from the Assistant-Regional-Director-of-First/Fourth-Amendment-Violations dept

The recently-released 9/11 Commission's review of FBI tactics in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks seems to suggest the agency should perform even more racial profiling than it already does. As Kevin Gosztola of Firedoglake points out, the language in the report places a lot of emphasis on "domain awareness" and pre-crime policing.

Documents the American Civil Liberties Union have been able to obtain show [PDF] that “FBI analysts make judgments based on crude stereotypes about the types of crimes different racial and ethnic groups commit, which they then use to justify collecting demographic data to map where people with that racial or ethnic makeup live.” The FBI uses “domain analysis” to target American Muslims and Islamic institutions.

The similarities between this suggested course of action and the NYPD's infamous "Demographics Unit" (led by a former CIA official) are notable. Both involve questionable tactics like declaring entire mosques "terrorist organizations" simply because attendees followed the same religion as the 9/11 attackers. Notably, the FBI found the NYPD's tactics so thoroughly violated the rights of those being surveilled that it refused to access any of the intelligence gathered by the Demographics Unit. That decision ultimately cost the FBI nothing in terms of usable intel. Despite years of rights violations and round-the-clock surveillance, the NYPD's special unit was never instrumental in preventing attacks or producing significant arrests.

Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel notes that the FBI's analysis of the 9/11 Commission's reports indicates a significant percentage of FBI agents found racial profiling and pre-crime "investigations" to be a waste of time.

According to one anecdote, 20% of analysts (not even Field Agents!) understand the point of this. And even in offices where they do understand, the Field Agents won’t do their part by going and filling in the blanks analysts identify.

The "blanks" are contained in CSCCs (Central Strategic Coordinating Components), linked to field offices' "domain awareness" programs. But one-fifth of agents refused to comply with this directive -- not because 20% of FBI agents are necessarily against racial profiling (documents obtained by the ACLU show otherwise) -- but because the tactic just doesn't work.

Call me crazy. But maybe the people responding to actual crimes believe they learn enough in that process — and are plenty busy enough trying to catch criminals — that they don’t see the point of racially profiling people like NYPD does? Maybe they believe the ongoing threats are where the past ones have been, and there’s no need to spend their time investigating where there aren’t crimes in case there ever are in the future?

Doing investigative work like investigators, rather than like surveillance dragnets? That's probably crazy enough to work. Not that the FBI has any desire to dial back its requests for encryption backdoors and unfettered access to electronic communications, but those actually out in the field seem to know what works and what doesn't. And a constant APB for anyone fitting the "Muslim/Male" description isn't exactly helpful.

Of course, those at the top -- the ones finding this to be a credible way to fight terrorism -- see this 20% as outliers who have failed to "get on the bus." And in a mixture of the worst parts of bureaucracy and corporate culture, they've responded with "do more of what isn't productive, only faster and harder."

Yet rather than analyzing whether this concept serves any purpose whatsoever, it instead says, “it’s corporate policy, no one is doing it well, so it needs to improve.”

There's a lesson here, but those writing the review aren't comprehending it. (Wheeler notes that many of those interviewed for the report aren't actually FBI agents, but rather representatives of other intelligence agencies, like the CIA.) To catch terrorists, you need smarter investigative work, not work that involves blanket surveillance and the rote filling in of blanks. The NYPD should know this, considering its failure to catch plots later uncovered by the FBI, but it doesn't. Despite the disbandment of the "Demographics Unit," it still clings to the belief that mass surveillance beats real police work any day of the week. The FBI has figured this out -- or at least a percentage of its agents have -- but that's not going to be enough to persuade those calling for more of everything to dial back their efforts a bit.

The FBI can be smart, but it's apparently hampered by upper management with an obvious fondness for bad ideas that simultaneously expand the agency's power. If it is how it looks, the real aim of the agency heads is more power, not fewer terrorist attacks.

Filed Under: fbi, nypd, racial profiling, terrorism

EFF Files Brief In Support Of 'Cannibal Cop' To Keep The CFAA From Becoming Even MORE Abusive

from the strangest-of-bedfellows dept

The US legal system took a step towards criminalizing thought when a New York court convicted a former NYPD officer of conspiring to kidnap, rape, kill and eat 100 women. The evidence against Gilberto Valle included chat logs and internet searches.

The details uncovered were nightmarish. But at the end of it all, it only amounted to Valle giving his very vivid imagination a long leash. On appeal, the court overturned the conspiracy charges, stating that Valle's "conspiracy" was little more than thoughtcrime, something the legal system isn't* in the business of punishing. (And yet, "conspiracy" remains a valid criminal charge -- one used extensively by the FBI to bag its handcrafted "terrorists." Go figure.)

*About a million caveats apply.

But the court left one charge on the table: a CFAA violation. During the course of Valle's fantasizing, he used police databases to look up information on one of his "victims." This, of course, is an egregious abuse of his position and access, but it is not -- as the EFF argues -- a CFAA violation.

Despite acquitting Valle on the conspiracy charge, the court upheld the CFAA conviction, believing that the restrictions placed on Valle concerning the database—which permitted him to access any part of the database as long as it was for a valid law enforcement purpose—was an access restriction, not a use restriction, simply because of the way the restriction was phrased. The distinction between "access" and "use" restrictions is critical because serious prison time is at stake. Congress clearly intended the CFAA to criminalize the act of breaking into computer systems a person is not allowed to be in otherwise, but violating a use restriction—a (usually written) policy that governs the purposes for which someone can use their access—is clearly not that.

The EFF has filed an amicus brief in Valle's case (now before the Second Circuit Court), arguing for this charge to be overturned as well. In it, the EFF points out that Valle's unauthorized access didn't involve him actually breaking into the NYPD's computers -- a key element of CFAA charges. Instead, he already had access. He just didn't have permission to do what he did.

So, while Valle's abuse of his access was certainly immoral, possibly illegal under a New York state law, and a clear violation of NYPD policy, it was not the sort of circumvention Congress had in mind when it crafted the bill. There should definitely be consequences for this activity (including Valle being subject to civil rights lawsuits from the violated party[ies]), but there definitely should not be a finding that violating an internal use policy is a federal crime.

As it stands now, the decision reached by the lower court poses a serious threat to nearly anyone with access to computers/networks provided by their employers.

Most critically, the court set a dangerous precedent. As we’ve repeatedly warned, this theory of CFAA liability gives employers and website owners the power to make behavior illegal through simply adopting use restrictions in their corporate policies or terms of use, which in turn criminalizes a broad range of innocuous everyday behaviors—like checking personal email or the score of a baseball game.

It's the worst cases -- ones with less-than-sympathetic defendants -- that result in the worst precedents. Valle's extended, detailed cannibalistic fantasies are hard to defend, even knowing that he never followed through with the lurid plans he dreamed up. Free speech is toughest to defend when it's composed of brutal and depraved fantasies that include any number of hideous criminal acts. But the lower court saw it for what it was: thoughts, not deeds.

Now, there's one detail left, but it's hardly a minor one. The remaining charge -- if left standing -- seriously lowers the bar for criminal charges under the CFAA, a law that is already severely flawed. And so, the EFF joins the battle on behalf of a former NYPD officer who abused his position to further his violent fantasies in hopes of protecting far-more-centered members of the general public from abuse at the hands of a broken law.

Filed Under: cfaa, computer hacking, gilberto valle, misuse, nypd, unauthorized use
Companies: eff

NYPD Union Turns On President Pat Lynch For Using Two Officers' Deaths To Fight A Pointless War With The Mayor

from the every-tragedy-is-an-opportunity dept

Pat Lynch, the president of New York City's Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA), has always been a cop's best friend, especially the more questionable ones. In the wake of Eric Garner's death at the hands of an NYPD officer, Lynch was quick to deflect criticism by pointing fingers at the person who captured the incident on video.

The New York City Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the largest union representing NYPD officers, said in a statement that it was “criminals like Mr. Orta who carry illegal firearms who stand to benefit the most by demonizing the good work of police officers.”

Lynch also opposed efforts (supported by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton) that might make his officers more accountable, ignoring evidence collected elsewhere because it didn't agree with his belief that cops shouldn't be watched. Oh, and the real problem is that the city is too quick to hand over money to victims of police misconduct.

We are reserving our decision on body cameras until we see some real evidence of their effectiveness and impact on the officers who carry them. The Public Advocate cites the $152 million that the city spends on lawsuits against police officers but what she fails to say is that the city refuses to fight even the most ridiculous and baseless of the claims. Instead, they settle these ridiculous suits when they should fight everyone of them to conclusion which would effectively put an end to quick buck lawsuits against our officers.

As the situation eroded after the killing of Eric Garner, Lynch continued to support the NYPD's every action. When two officers were killed in their cars by a gunman, Lynch used this tragedy to widen the divide between the police and the policed. During memorial services for the slain cops, attending officers turned their backs on Mayor De Blasio for his daring to suggest his mixed-race son might have more to fear from the city's stop-and-friskers than whites.

Lynch further leveraged this tragedy with his explicit support of the NYPD's "work slowdown." Unfortunately, this non-enforcement of bullshit charges failed to return the city to its murder-a-minute heyday of the 70s and 80s, instead highlighting the fact that only going after more dangerous criminals was actually a fairly good way to police a city.

But even though Lynch has done his most to be a cop's best friend, it's becoming clear that many cops are no longer returning his affections. Union members are finally realizing that Lynch doesn't really serve his members' interests. He only serves himself.

Back in January, a union meeting devolved into shoving matches and screaming as members began to express their displeasure with Lynch's preference for grandstanding, rather than taking care of his officers.

A police union meeting sparked an uproar Tuesday when officers blasted union president Pat Lynch over his demand that Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to the NYPD, police sources said.

The war of words took place at the end of the two-hour meeting at Antun’s in Queens Village when union delegates from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association began shouting at Lynch, demanding to know what came out of a recent meeting with the mayor, a law-enforcement source said.

Lynch accused the mayor of having "blood on his hands" after the slaying of two NYPD officers, while refashioning their corpses into his personal pulpit. But his officers don't care whether or not De Blasio apologizes for his statements on the Garner case. What they actually want is what almost all officers want: safety.

The officers at the union meeting wanted answers from Lynch about getting heavier weapons, better bulletproof vests and new patrol cars, the source said.

Lynch values being very publicly right above almost anything else. His officers just want to feel that what happened to two of their own won't happen to them. Lynch not only doesn't care about the rank-and-files' priorities, he's not above using their deaths to further his career.

Critics of Patrick Lynch have accused the fiery union leader of campaigning for reelection on the backs of murdered cops — including the use of a somber photo at a memorial for the slain officers…

The latest controversy stems from a new campaign video showing the president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association in uniform at a makeshift memorial honoring Liu and Ramos.

The 1-minute, 4-second video, which a Lynch spokesman said was not authorized by the campaign, begins with a backdrop of stars and the words: “Team Lynch 2015.”

[...]

In one image, Lynch is delicately laying flowers at the foot of the memorial.

“Thousands of cops went to that memorial and he gets his picture taken and uses it,” the delegate said. “ None of the other cops had their pictures taken. Only the politicians . . . so that makes him worse than the politicians.”

"Authorized" or not, it's not making Lynch any more friends in the department, something he kind of needs if he's going to continue to hold this position of power. And as for the authorized aspect of the video, various PBA spokespeople seem to be offering contradictory statements.

The pictures in the video are not meant to elicit the sympathy vote, spokesman Al O’Leary said. “(They are) just the most recent photos available of him in uniform,” he explained.

Why someone from Lynch's camp would feel compelled to defend images from an unauthorized video, much less make statements about the intent of the photos that supposedly weren't picked by Lynch's office, is puzzling. Then there's the fact that the video first surfaced on PBA treasurer Joseph Alejandro's Facebook page, which would at least suggest endorsement of the content. (Which has since been removed for -- of all reasons -- copyright claims by the NY Daily News over images used in the video.)

Whether or not Lynch specifically authorized this video no longer matters. He will suffer the backlash from its publication just the same. He no longer has control of the union and he has really no one else to blame. While the PBA will undoubtedly continue to defend its officers from criticism and accountability, it likely won't be Lynch heading it up. It's the union that isn't, one whose "leadership" cares more about press appearances and political warfare than ensuring its members are better protected and equipped.

At the end of the day, cops (rightly or wrongly) just want to make it home alive. And while Lynch is certainly quick to deploy the unofficial First Rule of Policing in defense of his officers' misconduct, he has no interest in actually backing up his stated concern for officer safety with any practical actions. Lynch's eventual exit will be welcomed, even if his replacement may be the same sort of self-centered political animal. Lynch managed to turn two tragedies into nothing more than a pointless, public shouting match with the Mayor's office that did nothing at all to serve the officers whose wages he receives a cut of.

Filed Under: bill bratton, bill de blasio, nyc, nypd, pat lynch, pba, union

More Power For Bad Cops: NYPD Head Supports Raising 'Resisting Arrest' To A Felony

from the only-a-felon-would-resist-arrest-because-resisting-arrest-is-a-felony dept

Here's a horrifying statement:

Asked whether the penalty for resisting arrest should be increased from a misdemeanor to a felony, [NYPD Commissioner Bill] Bratton said he supported the idea.

“We need to get around this idea that you can resist arrest,” Bratton reiterated to reporters after the hearing. “One of the ways to do that is to give penalties for that.”

The most half-baked "weapon" in any policeman's arsenal should never be raised to the level of a felony. "Resisting arrest" is the charge brought when bad cops run out of better ideas. This truism runs through nearly every law enforcement agency in the country. When you take a look at videographers and photographers who have been arrested for exercising their First Amendment rights (and backed by a DOJ statement), you'll see plenty of "resisting arrest" charges.

When a San Francisco public defender tried to head off a detective who wanted to question and photograph her client without her permission, she was arrested for "resisting arrest."

When someone has been brutalized by the police, the words "resisting arrest" are repeated nearly as frequently as the mantra that accompanies every taser deployment and baton swing ("stop resisting"). Resisting arrest is a dodge that makes bad cops worse and marginal cops bad.

Turning resisting arrest into a felony shouldn't happen anywhere. But perhaps especially not in New York City. A WNYC investigation turned up these damning statistics. (via Vox)

WNYC analyzed NYPD records and found 51,503 cases with resisting arrest charges since 2009. Just five percent of officers who made arrests during that period account for 40% of resisting arrest cases — and 15% account for almost 3/4 of such cases.

If resisting arrest was a legitimate charge, the distribution would be much more even. But it isn't. It's a charge that's used most by abusive cops -- and law enforcement agencies know it.

Many policing experts consider charges of resisting arrest to be the best broad measure of use of force in arrests. The department has tracked charges of resisting arrest as a way of identifying officers who may use excessive force, said a former senior department official who insisted on anonymity because he still works in law enforcement.

To turn this into a felony is to grant bad cops a longer leash -- and allows them to do much more damage. Not only will the victims of excessive force have to deal with injuries and psychological trauma, they may also find their futures severely disrupted by a felony charge that will follow them around for years.

The protests following the clearing of the officer involved in Eric Garner's death, followed shortly thereafter by the murder of two NYPD officers by a civilian, have turned the NYPD against the public. Bratton's support of this abhorrent idea makes it clear he's willing to put more power in the hands of his worst officers. However bad he feels the situation is now, this action will only make things worse. The answer lies in greater accountability from the NYPD, not additional punishments for members of the public.

Filed Under: bill bratton, felony, nypd, resisting arrest

NYPD Social Media Monitoring Policy Allows For Use Of Aliases, Has Exceptions For Terrorist Activity

from the overall:-not-terrible,-would-hesitantly-recommend dept

Recently, in an article discussing the arrest of a Brooklyn teenager for emoji-riddled "terroristic threats" (who is now free after the grand jury declined to return charges), I wondered just how "routine" the NYPD's stated "routine Facebook monitoring" was. Now, thanks to a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request by Chase Pashkowick of MuckRock, we have at least a partial answer.

The policy [pdf link] -- Use of Social Networks for Investigative Purposes -- is still in force, which makes it somewhat of a miracle the intensely secretive NYPD released it at all. The policy states that the NYPD can freely access any information available publicly -- i.e., from any service not requiring a login or email account to view content.

It also allows officers and investigators to dig even deeper by utilizing aliases. Or as MuckRock puts it, the NYPD has a license for catfishing.

The operations order seeks “to instill the proper balance between the investigative potential of social network sites and privacy expectations." There is no prior authorization required to review publicly accessible information, such as party announcements blasted across Facebook or Twitter. But NYPD officers must seek approval before logging into social networks using any online identity other than their own.

Such requests for an online alias must pass two levels of supervisory, letterheaded scrutiny. This includes a supervisor’s official sign-off on the username itself as well as the proposed profile photo, although the policy does not parse acceptable from forbidden photograph sources.

There are nine steps officers must follow if they wish to utilize an alias.

2. Evaluate request to determine whether an online alias would serve an investigative purpose, and if so, prepare Typed Letterhead requesting an online alias to bureau chief/deputy commissioner concerned.

3. Include on Typed Letterhead:

a. Purpose for the request type of investigation, etc.)
b. Tax registry number of requesting member
c. Username (online alias)
d. Identifiers and pedigree to be utilized for the online alias, such as email address, username and date of birth.
(1) Do not include password(s) for online alias and ensure password(s) are secured at all times.
e. Indicate whether there is a need to requisition a Department laptop with aircard.

4. Review photograph to be used in conjunction with online alias, if applicable.

a. Consider the purpose for which the photograph is being used and the source of the photograph.
b. Attach a copy of the approved photograph and indicate on Typed Letterhead how photograph was obtained.

5. Forward request to commanding officer for review.

6. Review request(s) and consider the purpose and whether granting approval would serve an investigative purpose.

7. Endorse request(s) indicating within one day of original request and if APPROVED, immediately forward approval to bureau chief/deputy commissioner concerned, through channels, for informational purposes.

8. File copies of requests in command.

9. Maintain record of online alias in case records management systems or appropriate Department records.

10. Maintain folder for each APPROVED online alias.

a. Designate an administrator for the online alias.

All in all, a pretty tightly controlled system... unless terrorism is afoot, at which point the rules loosen up a bit.

11. Immediately contact Intelligence Division, Operations Desk supervisor and provide details regarding proposed investigation.

12. Determine if investigation should be conducted by the Intelligence Division and proceed accordingly.

13. Notify requesting supervisor to proceed with investigation if it has been determined that the investigation will not be conducted by the Intelligence Division.

14. Comply with steps 2 through 10 as appropriate, if investigation will not be conducted by the Intelligence Division.

It would appear that the Intelligence Division can take this alias request and run with it, most likely subject to a minimum of oversight. If they turn it down, it's back to the previous page of rules and the stricter controls.

If there are exigent circumstances (a handy term of art that is often deployed to assure exceptions swallow rules), all an officer needs to do is "confer" with the Intelligence Division and follow its instructions. If it's not both "exigent" and "terrorist-related," then it's back to the nine-step approval process.

The policy also includes sensible rules for officers using NYPD internet connections and computers, including the admonition that every alias bears the risk of being exposed. To that end, investigators are instructed to use department laptops with aircards to help ensure an anonymous connection. They are also told to avoid using names and email addresses that can be traced back to the department, as well as to exercise the common sense Rules of the Internet: be wary of clicking links, delete spam rather than reading it, never open attachments unless you can verify who sent it, and avoid using home/public connections/computers to conduct police business.

The social media monitoring policy also pays lip service to the Handschu Agreement the department's so-called "Demographics Unit" killed off in its pursuit of all things Muslim. The guidelines were meant to prevent the surveillance of non-criminal, politically-focused activity. The former CIA operative who headed the new surveillance unit managed to carve out large exceptions to this agreement on the way to placing several NYC mosques under round-the-clock watch. While it's nice to see a hat tip in its direction, it's a meaningless paragraph that only gives the document an air of First Amendment respect -- and only to those who are unfamiliar with the NYPD's neutering of this agreed-upon protection. Those inside the exception-to-all-rules Intelligence Division already know these words mean nothing. Most of those monitoring social media for anything terrorist-related know this as well.

But given the department's not-so-secret affection for all things surveillance, the policy is surprisingly restrictive. Whether it's actually followed to the letter is still an unanswered question.

Filed Under: aliases, fake profiles, media monitoring, nypd, social media, terrorism

NYPD Commissioner: Because Terrorism And Protests Are Roughly The Same Thing, A New Special Unit Will Handle Both

from the pipe-bomb-or-placard?-better-safe-than-sorry. dept

The NYPD has created yet another special unit to handle the myriad problems that arise from being terrorists' occasional target. The SRG (Strategic Response Group) will be tasked with handling certain situations, most of which did not occur in New York City.

“It is designed for dealing with events like our recent protests, or incidents like Mumbai or what just happened in Paris,” the commissioner [Bill Bratton] said.

So… it's designed for dealing with protests -- the most recent of which were kicked off by the clearing of a cop who choked an unarmed man to death. The other two incidents have nothing to do with New York other than the fact that the NYPD sent its own officers overseas at the request of nobody.

Apparently, the new unit will be armed to the teeth, as behooves riot protest cops.

“They’ll be equipped and trained in ways that our normal patrol officers are not,” Bratton said. “They’ll be equipped with all the extra heavy protective gear, with the long rifles and machine guns — unfortunately sometimes necessary in these instances.”

Or not, said the department when its new counterprotest unit began taking heat for Bratton's conflation of terrorism and tying up traffic.

When asked if New Yorkers should expect to see police officers with “machine guns” at city protests, a spokesman for the NYPD told The Intercept, “No. They’re not carrying them at protests.” In general, however, the spokesman said officers would have access to the weapons “either on them or in their vehicles.”

So, they won't carry machine guns while policing protests, but they'll be in easy reach. Bratton stated that responding to protests and terrorist attacks require "overlapping skills," hence the creation of a single unit. There has been no further clarification on what these "skills" might be, other than possibly being able to discern whether it's a protest or terrorist attack they're dealing with and, consequently, whether the machine gun stays in the squad car.

This new unit must be something special. Or its already-existing counterpart must be something awful.

SRG also will supplement the 1,000-officer NYPD counterterrorism program, which has also been trained in heavy-weapons tactics, a police official said.

In addition to the 1,350 counterterrorist cops, there will be more surveillance. The NYPD's push to turn the city into the next London continues, with the promised addition of cameras in every subway car, accessible to both the conductor and "offsite" viewers within the PD.

Bratton is also pushing for something less lethal than "long rifles" to be carried by his cops.

The commissioner said he will also ask Mayor Bill de Blasio for more funding to buy more Tasers as an alternative to the use of force. Bratton reportedly wants at least 450 cops — five or six at each of the city’s 77 precincts — to carry Tasers on them, not leave them in their cars…

Well, I'd say Bratton need to fix the second part first. There's no reason to buy new Tasers if you can't get cops to carry them. Locking them up in the glovebox pretty much ensures that the only force officers can deploy will be of the "deadly" variety. The difference between tasing someone into submission and shooting someone into submission is often the difference between life and death. Of course, NYPD officers are also fond of other such "less-lethal" tactics like chokeholds and unprovoked beatings. Adding a Taser just means some citizen's going to have electricity pumped into his system on top of anything else the officers feel like deploying.

Using the word "terrorism" in a sentence is an easy way to route funds to your law enforcement agency. New York -- being both highly populated and an American icon -- is certainly high on the list of terrorist targets. But years of counterterrorist investigations have done very little to reduce the threat. The NYPD has been overselling and under-delivering on the "imminent terrorist threat" front for years. Because it has so little to police at home, it's been sending its officers around the world to actual terrorist attacks -- a tactic that has earned it little more than the irritated scorn of those actually charged with policing much more dangerous parts of the world.

Above and beyond all of this, there's Bratton's assertion that the same special unit should be tasked with counterterrorism and handling protests, as if the two were remotely related in any way. The message is clear: civil disobedience is an attack on New York City itself -- and Bratton's boys and girls trained in the art of counterterrorism will be on hand to break up the next one. To dissent is to strike terror into the NYPD -- itself a pleasant thought. But once the SRG hits the streets, it probably won't end well for those would-be terrorists and their evil protests.

Filed Under: nypd, protests, terrorism

Teen Arrested For Emoji-Laden 'Terroristic Threats'

from the the-smoking-emoji dept

The question will probably never be satisfactorily answered, but here it is again: what constitutes a "terroristic threat?" According to the NYPD, it's a line of emoji (emoticons) guns pointing at an emoji cop's heads.

Osiris Aristy, a 17-year-old from Brooklyn, does not hold back in his Facebook status updates. He posts about his love for blunts and cough syrup, wanting to buy his mother a bigger home, and his disdain for the police.

Most of Aristy’s anti-cop status updates seem tame compared to the vitriol found all over the internet. They are not altogether different from many hip-hop lyrics, where the figure of the cop killer is sometimes an archetype of rebellion and power.

But on the evening of Jan. 15, according to a criminal complaint, Aristy posted a photo of a revolver with bullets beside it, and wrote he felt “like katxhin a body right now.”

Shortly thereafter, he posted the following:

N***a run up on me, he gunna get blown down,' followed by an emoji of a police officer with three gun emojis pointed at it, according to a criminal complaint.

And at 11:05 p.m., Aristy posted "F**k the 83 104 79 98 73 PCTKKKK," followed by the police officer emoji with two gun emojis pointed at it, the DA's office said.

Here's some of Aristy's earlier "work," for illustrative purposes.


That was enough for the NYPD. Three days later, Aristy was arrested. Due to the recent death of two officers at the hands of a man who posted threats online and actually followed through with him, the NYPD is taking every precaution to avoid a repeat of this tragedy. But this insight into its everyday tactics should give would-be criminals pause, as well as anyone else in the New York City area with publicly-accessible social media accounts.

Police received an arrest warrant from District Attorney Ken Thompson's office after routine Facebook monitoring found that Aristy had posted selfies with guns, selfies with marijuana joints and statements made with emojis threatening to kill cops, according to the DA's office and 83rd Precinct Inspector Maximo Tolentino.

"Routine Facebook monitoring." That sort of statement demands a follow-up, but the NYPD being the NYPD, there won't be any further details forthcoming. Is it some sort of data grabbing software that focuses on keywords and location? Or is it a handful of cops actively monitoring feeds and only capturing "relevant" information? Or is it just a terrible way of rephrasing "someone reported a threat and the NYPD followed up on it." The latter seems most likely, considering Aristy's earlier posts using the same emoji-gun-pointed-at-emoji-cop imagery was ignored.

One thing is for certain: the NYPD is all over perceived threats.

Ever since the December’s lone gunman made good on an Instagram threat to kill two cops, the NYPD has arrested at least five people for threatening police on social media.

(The actual number of cases is likely higher. The NYPD did not respond to repeated requests for the exact number of people arrested on such charges. The department also did not respond to questions regarding the criteria used to decide when to make arrests based on online threats.)

And no further details there, either.

The underlying dilemma will likely never go away completely. There's no bright line between talking smack and issuing threats. A threat isn't a threat without intent and it's very difficult to prove its existence (or lack thereof). But the New York state statute governing terroristic threats -- like many others around the nation -- is a product of post-9/11 legislating. And like the others, it's overly broad. While it still requires prosecutors to prove intent, it's wide open enough to sweep up stupid statements, trash talking and about a million aspiring rappers.

The statute says that any statement intending to intimidate civilians or the government by threatening to commit a specific offense can be prosecuted as terrorism. It adds that a defendant’s unwillingness or inability to actually carry out the threat “shall be no defense.”

Applied to Aristy's emoji, this statute seems to fail. No specific offense is contained in his postings. Only vague but violent assertions. On the other hand, the photo of the revolver adds credence to Aristy's ability, if not his willingness, to carry out the emoji-illustrated threats.

As for the intent, that will be determined in court, if the judge doesn't dismiss the case altogether. Because of the law's broad wording and the NYPD's increased surveillance of suspicious social media posts, there's plenty of room for intimidation and abuse.

“The threshold to make an arrest is not the same as the one for a conviction,” [NY University law professor] Neuborne said. “This gives the police very significant power to harass people.”

Since the bar to obtain an arrest warrant on charges of making terroristic threats is only probable cause of the author’s intent, the NYPD could potentially arrest anyone who makes anti-cop statements, even if they come in the form of emojis.

Aristy is likely looking at doing time, even if the terroristic threat charge is dismissed. Police found 25 grams of marijuana and a gun while searching his residence.

The defining line between threats and free speech is still muddied. A case before the Supreme Court -- involving Anthony Elonis' social media postings (he says the posts were "rap lyrics," his ex-wife and local law enforcement believe they are "true threats") will attempt to sort this out. Whether the ruling will actually clear anything up remains to be seen. At the moment, it's still a great way for stupid and obnoxious people to get arrested for typing faster than their brains can process. Or, as in the case of Aristy, a way to turn self-proclaimed street cred into a prison sentence.

Filed Under: emojis, nypd, overreaction, terroristic threat, threats

NYPD Pouts And Refuses To Do Their Duty; Residents Split Between Applauding And Failing To Notice

from the irrelevant dept

As you may be aware, things have gotten weird with the NYPD over the past several weeks. In what amounts to the police force in our nation's largest city throwing a temper tantrum over either the brutal murder of 2 officers or the sudden attention being paid to how police officers treat the city's minority residents in the wake of the stop and frisk scandals and the death of Eric Garner, the NYPD's numbers are all down. Arrests are down somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%, and citations appear to have plummeted to a fraction of the norm, resulting in arraignment numbers dropping by nearly a third. While the NYPD has denied that this is any kind of coordinated lack-of-effort, that claim is laughable and it's obvious that the police officers have banded together to show us how much New York City needs them and how horrible life will be when they stop performing the duties they swore to perform.

Too bad most people are barely noticing and that those who have noticed are thrilled.

Few managers in the court system expect the current downturn to last. Many public defenders, however, said they hope the steep decline in minor arrests will become permanent. They noted felonies did not rise over the last three weeks as arrests for low-level crimes plummeted.

"This proves to us is what we all knew as defenders: You can end broken-windows policing without ending public safety," said Justine M. Luongo, the deputy attorney-in-charge of criminal practice for the Legal Aid Society.

Those who have been arrested are getting better service from public defenders, while the courts themselves are free from the clutter of the massive arrests the police usually perform. You might be tempted to think that this means low-level criminals are getting away with their crimes. That might be true to some extent, though nobody seems to want to put forth any actual empirical data to support the claim, but what's plainly obvious thanks to the lack of clutter is how silly NYPD arrests can get.

Those arrested for relatively minor offenses now stand out. On Wednesday morning in Manhattan, William Talen, 64, who calls himself Reverend Billy, awaited arraignment. He had been arrested on Tuesday afternoon as he gave a sermon in Grand Central Terminal — protesting police brutality.

If the drop in arrests resulting from the NYPD refusing to do their jobs is made up of these kinds of arrests, good riddance. And it isn't just public defenders with more free time that appreciate the police taking a walk on their duty. The citizens are happy about it as well.

Charles Franklin, a 27-year-old student wearing a Shepard Fairey hat that reads “OBEY,” is also enjoying the latest trend in policing.“This is how it’s supposed to be,” he says, referring to the “quiet” he’s been sensing, the “lower volume” of cops he’s been seeing on local corners. “I’m not talking about guys getting away with nothing, I’m talking about feeling safe. The police driving up on us, because of some hearsay, and jumping out, that don’t make us feel safe. The police smelling every drink I drink, looking in my bag every time I come out the store, that don’t make me feel safe. This is how it’s supposed to be,” he reiterates. “We feel safe. And for once, we're not running late – usually we always be running late because of having been hassled.”

Those sentiments are accompanied by wry quotes affirming that some of the police force's biggest money-making habits, such as parking citations on the one block where they make lots of money are still going strong even as overall tickets are way down,

That said, the reaction to the police sitting on their hands and refusing to do their duty is pretty clear: shrugs and applause. As one person noted, it's somewhat revealing:

To many of us from these communities, the past two weeks have amounted to a vacation from fear, surveillance and punishment. Maybe this is what it feels like to not be prejudged and seen as suspicious law breakers. Maybe this is a small taste of what it feels like to be white.

If the NYPD was trying to teach the city's citizens a lesson, it appears to have taught one unintentionally: there are too many police on staff arresting too many people most of the time. Nice job, union bosses!

Filed Under: broken windows, nypd, tickets, virtual work stoppage

Sickening: Police & Surveillance State Apologists Leap At Charlie Hebdo Opportunity To Advocate For More Spying, Less Freedom

from the surveillance-state-opportunists dept

In the wake of the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris yesterday, many people have been talking about various issues related to free speech and satire. We didn't have much to add to that discussion so we stayed out of it, but it's concerning to see that those who wish to suppress other civil liberties are jumping at the chance to use the attack yesterday as a jumping off point. Here are just a few examples. The NY Post ran an article saying that this proves the NYPD shouldn't have stopped its "Muslim Mapping" program:

...we believe the city should revisit its decision to dismantle the NYPD’s “Muslim Mapping” intelligence program.

The program was designed to provide exactly the kind of intelligence that would have been useful to police in Paris once they identified their three suspects in Wednesday’s terror attack. Namely, where they might go to find shelter or assistance.

If you don't recall, this effort was recently disbanded after multiple reports noted that it was completely useless, with not a single useful piece of evidence coming out of the entire program. As Julian Sanchez points out, there's something terrifying to the logic of "all evidence shows this project was totally useless, but we have to keep it going because of all these threats!"

And yet... the same thing is happening in other arenas as well. A year ago, both a court and the specially appointed task force set up to review the intelligence community's use of bulk metadata collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act noted that there was absolutely no evidence at all that the bulk metadata collection was ever used to stop terrorist attacks.

And yet... former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden went on cable news on Thursday morning to use the Charlie Hebdo attack as an excuse for why the program was so useful. After spending about four minutes talking about how these kinds of random small attacks are likely to be the new way terrorists attack, he then defends metadata collection:

Let me add another thought here too: You know, I was talking to you guys about 12 months ago, about these massive amounts of metadata that NSA held in storage. That metadata doesn't look all that scary this morning and I wouldn't be surprised if the French services pick up cell phones associated with the attack and ask the Americans, 'where have you seen these phones active globally?'.

Actually, no, that metadata does still seem pretty scary, because it also includes a hell of a lot more than just those responsible for the attack. And, it's not like law enforcement and the intelligence community can't go back to the operators currently responsible and ask them for that data. There's still no reason to believe that the NSA needs to just be sitting on this data all the time. And, of course, it doesn't seem like all that metadata helped prevent any attack, now did it?

Either way, it's kind of sickening to see this kind of opportunist crap, seeking to strip civil liberties and privacy rights from people, at the same time so many people are focusing on the other side of the story, about protecting free speech.

Filed Under: attack, charlie hebdo, charlie hebdo attack, free speech, metadata, michael hayden, muslim mapping, muslims, ny post, nypd, paris, surveillance

Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep

from the 'I-feared-for-my-employment' dept

Late last month, rookie NYPD officer Peter Liang shot an unarmed resident of a Brooklyn housing project while entering an unlit stairwell. While opening a door, Liang's gun "discharged" (as they say). The bullet struck Akai Gurley in the chest, killing him.

It was an accident, but an avoidable one. Liang claims to have been opening the door to the stairwell with a flashlight in one hand and his gun in the other. While opening the door (possibly using his "gun hand), he inadvertently fired his weapon. That his gun was drawn was questionable enough. But this error in judgment was further compounded by his actions immediately following the discovery that he had shot someone in the stairwell.

The New York Daily News reports that in the crucial minutes following the shooting, Liang and his partner did not try to get medical attention for the grievously wounded man and could not be reached by either their commanding officer or the 911 dispatcher who fielded a call from a neighbor reporting gunshots.

Let that sink in for a moment. An accidental shot hits a man in the chest and the two officers on the scene have zero interest in ensuring the victim receives medical attention. Both officers (both rookies) decided to go off the grid rather than deal with the mess they had created.

Liang knew he had screwed up. But he chose to protect himself as a man he shot lay dying. Instead of responding to queries and calls, he was texting his union representative.

If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions. Through the power of labor agreements and arbitration hearings, unions can reinstate cops despicable enough that their own departments have disowned them. Liang may only be a rookie but he already recognizes who holds the most power.

His partner may have been following Liang's lead or was equally unsure of where to turn in the wake of this unfortunate incident. He may not have texted a union rep, but he also did nothing to ensure the victim received medical attention. He also chose to remain incommunicado. That decision may have been prompted by the fact that not only had the two officers been forbidden from performing this sort of patrol (called a "vertical") by their supervisor, but they also had no idea where they were.

Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man. That part is excusable, but only if entirely separated from the events following the shooting. Texting a union rep shows that Liang's primary concern was for his own livelihood rather than the well-being of anyone around him. His partner's compliant silence pushes this situation from merely tragic into the arena of the possibly criminal.

The Daily News cites court insiders as saying "while the shooting may have been a mishap, the cops' subsequent conduct can amount to criminal liability."

While I can appreciate the fact that the instinct for self-preservation can often override better judgment, police officers are held -- or should be -- to a higher standard. When someone's life is ebbing away thanks to your screwup, you need to take care of them first and worry about the extent of your ass coverage later. Police officers are already well-insulated against accountability. Talking to a union rep as a man lays dying is, no sickening pun intended, overkill.

Filed Under: akai gurley, nypd, peter liang, police, police brutality, police unions, protection