DOJ Issues Scathing Review Of Albuquerque Police Department' Use Of Force, Tempers It By Prioritizing Officer Safety

from the if-you-don't-like-the-risks,-don't-take-the-job dept

The Albuquerque, New Mexico police department has been a mess for quite some time now. Recently, it has gained national attention for two seemingly unjustified shootings of New Mexico residents. This is in addition to the 37 people the police force has shot since 2010, with 23 confirmed kills. As Ed Krayewski at Reason points out, the APD has shot more people than the NYPD, despite policing a city sixteen times smaller.

The Department of Justice was already investigating the department before the two latest shootings. The first involved a homeless person "illegally" camping, an infraction apparently punishable by death in New Mexico. The officers claimed the man came at them with knives, but video clearly shows him surrendering and attempting to walk down to them before being hit with a concussion grenade, followed shortly by several bullets. As for the danger poised by the knives he was carrying, the 20-30 feet between him and the officers at the beginning of the video (not to mention the difference in altitude) makes this much less of a threat than the reports indicated.

While the city of Albuquerque was still digesting the news of this apparently unjustified shooting, the APD shot another person. The police claimed he fired at them (and they did recover a gun at the scene) but video shot by an onlooker appears to show the man holding something (gun or cellphone) to his own head before shots ring out and he drops to the ground.


These shootings sparked a series of increasingly confrontational protests against the police, as well as drawing the attention of Anonymous, which took down the APD website.

The release of the DOJ's report is certainly well-timed, if nothing else. Those who have seen the entire thing call it "scathing." The prepared remarks from the DOJ's Jocelyn Samuels are certainly damning enough.

Officers use deadly force in an unconstitutional manner. Our investigation looked at officer-involved shootings that resulted in fatalities from 2009 to 2012 and found that a majority of them were unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We found that officers used deadly force against people who did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious harm to officers or others, and against people who posed a threat only to themselves. In fact, sometimes it was the conduct of the officers themselves that heightened the danger and escalated the need to use force.

We found that officers use other types of less lethal force, especially electronic control weapons, or Tasers, in an unconstitutional manner. Our investigation looked beyond just the use of deadly force and found a significant number of improper uses of force in our review of over 200 force reports generated between 2009 and early 2013. We found that officers routinely fired their Tasers, which discharge 50,000 volts of electricity, against people who were passively resisting and non-threatening or who were unable to comply with orders due to their mental state. Indeed, we found that encounters between police officers and persons with mental illness or in crisis too frequently resulted in a use of force or a higher level of force than necessary.

The remarks run on for much longer, noting the steps that will be taken to put the APD back in compliance with the Constitution and temper its officers' tendency to apply as much force as possible in a majority of situations. However, Samuels also takes the time to pat the heads of a police force so out of control the government was forced to step in.

To the women and men of the Albuquerque Police Department, we know your work is difficult and that you face dangers, known and unknown, when you hit the streets every day to keep this city safe. We recognize that many of you are dedicated public servants who wear your badge with distinction. We do not intend our findings today to mean that you must needlessly risk your lives or safety. You must come home safely to your family and loved ones.

This is what Scott Greenfield refers to as the "First Rule of Policing:" make it home safe. Even the DOJ follows it, apparently. But this should be a goal, not a priority. The "dedicated officers" know they're putting themselves in a dangerous position by taking the job. This doesn't give them permission to do whatever it takes to save their own lives.

Firemen don't just walk away from a fire if it looks life-threatening. Soldiers aren't told they can indiscriminately open fire if things feel a bit sketchy. Airline pilots aren't encouraged to jettison planes full of people (or over populated areas) in order to assure they "come home safely." Any other person taking a job that's potentially life-threatening assumes the risks. Cops somehow don't. And they use this "rule" as a justification for swift, thoughtless reactions that result in teens carrying Wii controllers getting shot and homeless schizophrenics being beaten to death.

By adding this disclaimer, Samuels partially absolves the APD of all of its wrongdoing. "You did what you had to do to survive." That attitude isn't going to fix anything and as long as police officers are encouraged to view their own safety as paramount, excessive force will continue to be applied.

Filed Under: abuse, albuquerque, doj, police

Dick Cheney Lies: Claims Not A Single Case Of NSA Abusing Its Authority

from the that's,-um,-not-true dept

At the bottom of a Mother Jones article covering a "behind-closed-doors talk" by former Vice President Dick Cheney -- in which he talked up (to applause) the idea of bombing Iran and whined that President Obama was too weak in the Middle East -- the authors mention that actually much of his speech was devoted to defending the NSA. Apparently, he did this by flat out lying.

There is the belief, he said, "that we have created in the National Security Agency this monster bureaucracy that's reading everybody's mail, listening to everybody's phone calls, infringing upon our civil liberties and civil rights. Hogwash." He claimed that there has not been a single case of NSA abusing its authority.

Well, except an internal NSA audit that was reported on months ago actually found that the NSA abused its authority thousands of times per year. And, really, a big part of the complaints aren't necessarily that the NSA abused its authority, but that even if they didn't "abuse their authority" that the ability to collect all this information was legal in the first place. Meanwhile, we also know that there are also a bunch of cases where the NSA has admitted analysts willfully abused their powers. And, while the NSA claims that it's caught all of those involved, a large percentage of them involved "self-reporting," which suggests many cases of abuse slipped under the radar. And, of course, there were many other known abuses as well, including many years in which the NSA flat-out ignored the FISA court's rules on handling metadata, allowing it to be shared widely, despite rules and promises not to do so.

This also ignores the fact that both a federal judge and the federal government's privacy and civil liberties oversight board (PCLOB) found the program unconstitutional and illegal. Yes, others have found that the program is legitimate, but to ignore the still open-ended question as to the legitimacy of the program to argue that there's been "no abuse" of authority is ridiculous. Hell, even the famed rubber stamping FISA court came close to shutting down the program and elsewhere discussed how the so-called privacy protections within the program was "so frequently and systematically violated" as to mean that they have "never functioned effectively."

I don't know about how Dick Cheney defines "abuse their authority," but it seems like there's fairly strong evidence of pretty widespread abuse -- much of it taking place while Cheney was in power. Of course, since his definition of "abuse" seems to be "doing something that Dick Cheney personally doesn't like," then, I guess he'd be correct. But, given the rather clear -- and flat-out admitted -- cases of abuse, combined with significant claims that the entire program is abusive -- it would appear that Cheney is simply lying.

Filed Under: abuse, dick cheney, lies, nsa, surveillance

If We're Going To Change DMCA's 'Notice & Takedown,' Let's Focus On How Widely It's Abused

from the time-to-fix-the-real-problems dept

Earlier today, we wrote about a push by copyright maximalists for a new censorship regime that they call "notice and staydown" as a sort of replacement for SOPA. The idea would be to shred the existing DMCA safe harbors (which give service providers protection from legal liability if they take down content upon notification by the copyright holder that it's infringing), and make some dangerous requirements that service providers would then have to proactively police their sites to guarantee that no other versions of that content ever show up (even if the other versions may be legal). But, if we're looking at the notice and takedown provisions of the DMCA, we should really be exploring how much damage they do. Rather than "notice and staydown" or even "notice and takedown" it's time we move to a much more reasonable "notice and notice" system.

Thankfully, Automattic's (makers of WordPress) general counsel, Paul Sieminski's testimony at yesterday's hearing highlighted this problem in a big way, pointing out that Automattic sees plenty of DMCA takedown abuse.

At Automattic, we've seen an increasing amount of abuse of the DMCA's takedown process. The DMCA's takedown process provides what can be an easy avenue for censorship: simply send in a DMCA notice claiming copyrights in a piece of content that you don't agree with. Regardless of whether you own the copyright, the service provider that hosts the content must take it down or risk being out of compliance with the DMCA.

Recent cases of abuse have been well documented. For example, we recently filed an amicus brief in support of Stephanie Lenz's lawsuit against Universal Music Group. In that case, Ms. Lenz posted a home video of her young child dancing in their family kitchen to a song by the artist Prince. Soon after posting, Universal Music (Prince's record label) sent a DMCA takedown notice to remove the video, claiming it infringed on their copyright in the music playing in the background.

In our amicus brief, we, along with the internet companies who joined us, outlined many other recent examples of misuse of the DMCA that we've seen on our respective platforms. For example:

• A medical transcription training service using forged customer testimonials on their website submitted a takedown for screenshots of the fake testimonials in a blog post exposing the scam.
• A physician demanded removal of newspaper excerpts posted to a blog critical of the physician, by submitting a DMCA notice in which he falsely claimed to be a representative of the newspaper.
• A model involved in a contract dispute with a photographer submitted a series of DMCA notices seeking removal of images of the model for which the photographer was the rights holder.
• An international corporation submitted DMCA notices seeking removal of images of company documents posted by a whistleblower.
• A frequent submitter of DMCA notices submitted a DMCA notice seeking removal of a screenshot of an online discussion criticizing him for submitting overreaching DMCA notices.

Sieminksi also discussed Automattic's recent decision to sue over two particularly egregious abusive DMCA notices -- and to highlight how there's really very little in the way of recourse for those whose legitimate content is taken down over such abusive tactics.

And this is not a small problem. The same day, the folks over at CDT released a detailed report on meritless DMCA takedowns of political ads, noting how frequently the DMCA is used to censor important political speech. Pointing out that these takedowns clearly have nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with censoring political speech, CDT notes just how damaging the DMCA has become on this front.

In addition to that, Ed Black from CCIA published a piece about how important it is to stop the abuses of DMCA takedowns, highlighting how it's often used to attack competitors or content someone just doesn't like:

Congressional inquiry could shed light on how DMCA takedown tools have been abused. For example, academic researchers found a large number of cases in which businesses targeted competitors, such as one case identified in the recent Google Transparency Report where a driving school sought its competitor's homepage to be disappeared from search results, on the basis that the competitor had copied an alphabetized list of cities. Other examples of attempted takedowns involved an employer targeting blog posts by a disgruntled employee and a movie studio seeking to suppress a review.

DMCA abuse has also stifled speech over unfavorable interviews, embarrassing news stories, and political campaign videos. Some rights-holders fired multiple takedowns at an unflattering documentary about their legal war with the Pirate Bay. HBO even sent takedowns over lawful open source software, and just last week, it was reported that the DMCA was used to try to take down publicly available facts (which likely aren't even protected by copyright).

Finally, Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy has a great opinion piece at Wired, in which he talks about how the "notice and takedown" system was designed as a "compromise" between copyright holders and service providers, but completely left out the people that copyright is supposed to benefit the most: the public:

This is not a two-sided issue. By only looking at copyright holders and online services, we neglect the interests of the most populous sector involved in copyright law: the public.

The safe harbors essentially are a safe harbor for online services, which host users' content like YouTube or Facebook. If a user of those services uploads something that infringes copyright, the host's liability is limited so long as it acts promptly to a takedown notice from the copyright holder. Each side gets something: the copyright holder gets a rapid removal of the infringing content, and the host gets safety from a potentially costly infringement lawsuit. But what happens to the users? Their uploads have been removed, and they're still potentially on the hook for massive statutory damages in a lawsuit.

We've discussed in the past how there are serious First Amendment concerns about "notice and takedown" provisions, in that they use government pressure to stifle free speech, placing huge potential liability on companies who don't disappear content based solely on the say-so of a single party.

And the simple fact is that there are better systems that would minimize the censorship risk. A basic "notice and notice" system is greatly preferable to a notice-and-takedown system (and, of course, the ridiculous notice-and-staydown). Under a notice-and-notice system, after receiving a notice, the service provider alerts the actual person who uploaded/created the content that is being targeted as infringing, providing them an opportunity to respond prior to taking down the content. There could be a set time, after which a lack of response would lead to a takedown. That way, most legitimate content is not censored, and the power of the DMCA safe harbors as a tool for censorship is greatly limited. Actually infringing content still gets removed in a timely fashion. It's such a reasonable solution that it will never happen with this Congress.

Filed Under: abuse, censorship, copyright, dmca, notice and notice, notice and staydown, notice and takedown, section 512
Companies: automattic

Senator Feinstein Finally Finds Surveillance To Get Angry About: When It Happened To Her Staffers

from the well,-look-at-that dept

This morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein finally got angry over the abusive practices of the intelligence community that she oversees as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Historically, of course, Feinstein has used her role of "oversight" to actually do everything possible to protect and defend the various intelligence organizations. However, as we've been discussing, Feinstein has wanted to declassify and publish an apparently devastating $40 million 6,300 page report detailing how the CIA's torture program was a complete disaster. The CIA has been fighting hard against this, and in the last few weeks, it came out that the CIA also spied on Senate staffers who were working on the report, after they'd uncovered an internal CIA document that corroborated the big report, and which showed the CIA had lied to the Senate. The CIA has hit back trying to blame the staffers for "illegally" taking a classified document, but that argument rings hollow.

Feinstein is apparently quite furious about all of this and let loose this morning about the CIA, claiming that they not only spied on the staffers, but secretly removed documents from the computers the staffers were using. She directly claimed that the CIA "may have undermined the constitutional framework" of Congressional oversight. That's not a charge one throws around lightly.

Besides possible constitutional violations, Feinstein said the CIA may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, various federal laws and a presidential executive order that bars the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance. She said she has asked for an apology and recognition that the CIA search of the committee's computers was inappropriate, but, "I have received neither."

While this confirms much of what was reported last week, it's noteworthy that Feinstein is speaking out about it. To date, she has tried to avoid saying much about this whole debate publicly, but it appears that the issue has finally boiled over. As we noted last week, having the CIA spy on its Senate overseers (and potentially tampering with their computers to remove documents) is an incredible overreach.

Of course, wasn't it just less than two months ago that Feinstein claimed that the intelligence community would never abuse its powers, because they were made up of professionals whose activities are "strictly vetted"? Perhaps she'll now go back and admit that perhaps she shouldn't be so trusting of the intelligence community when they're spying on everyone else, beyond just her staffers.

Filed Under: abuse, cia, dianne feinstein, john brennan, oversight, senate intelligence committee, surveillance, torture

Dash-Cam Revelations In NJ Show Again The Importance Of Video As Evidence In Police Abuse

from the worth-a-thousand-words dept

Several weeks ago, Tim Cushing wrote about a case in New Jersey featuring an officer accused of abusing a cyclist who failed to engage his dash-cam during the incident. As noted in the piece, the value of having optional tape of any incident occurring between an officer and the public should be obvious. On the one hand, the public is already under a great deal of public surveillance, which can often times be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings. Tape featuring law enforcement action is valuable both ways, first in holding our public servants to account should they fail to behave appropriately and second to exonerate them if they are accused of wrong-doing.

In this latest story, also in New Jersey, we see an example of the former. Marcus Jeter was met by police at the home he shares with his girlfriend after a domestic violence call made to police. Once there, police reportedly spoke to Jeter, who says he left amicably after briefly talking to officers. It's worth noting that no charges were ever filed for that domestic incident. What happened next, however, is another matter entirely. Jeter was pulled over by officers shortly after leaving the site of his home.

The New Jersey DJ, 30, was arrested in a 2012 traffic stop and charged with eluding police, resisting arrest and assault. Prosecutors insisted that Jeter do prison time.

The plea deal offered to Jeter was five years of prison time, for resisting arrest and assaulting police officers. Those were the charges levied in the officers' report. Those charges, as would later be determined by an active police dash-cam, were utter bullshit.

The video, which prosecutors say they never saw before filing the initial charges, shows Jeter holding his hands above his head.

"The next thing I know, one of them busts the [car] door and there is glass all over my face," he told ABC News station WABC-TV about the arrest. "As soon as they opened the door, one officer reached in and punched me in my face. As he's trying to take off my seat belt, I'm thinking, 'Something is going to go wrong.'" Jeter says the cops continued hitting him, telling him not to resist arrest.

Oops. As it turns out, there wasn't any resisting of arrest and the only assault occurring was when the officers beat the hell out of Jeter. On top of that, the officers in question elected to omit surely-unimportant details of the arrest from their reports, such as when one of them careened over a median into Jeter's vehicle, which was also shown in the dash-cam footage. On top of that, police had their weapons drawn almost immediately, despite the fact that Jeter had pulled over to the shoulder as requested and remained in his vehicle, terrified.

Thanks to Jeter's attorney filing a request for records, which included the footage, the charges against Jeter were dropped and charges were instead filed against the officers. Those charges include aggravated assault, conspiracy, and official misconduct.

Now, we can and should respect law enforcement, but that respect doesn't come without the public's right to verify our public officials are behaving honestly and judiciously. Let there be no argument: the public has a right to the footage of officers in action.

Filed Under: abuse, dash-cam, marcus jeter, new jersey, police

With Great Power Comes The Thinnest Skin: 13-Year-Old Hit With Felony Charges After Throwing Snowball At Cop

from the millions-of-assault-victims-still-wander-the-nation's-playgrounds dept

Considering the type of people cops interact with the most, you'd think law enforcement officers be the most broad-shouldered of individuals, easily shrugging off the various slights and indignities they're subjected to on a daily basis. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.

According to police, a 13-year-old boy was charged as a juvenile with felony aggravated battery against a police officer Wednesday after he hit the officer in the arm with a snowball while the officer was parked in his vehicle in the 4900 block of West Congress Parkway about 3:20 p.m.

A cop, a person not entirely unlike anyone else ever hit by a snowball, found the impact of snow against his arm to be nearly unbearable. The main difference between Joe Citizen and Officer Snowball is that the Chicago police officer has the power to toss the offending person into the gears of the criminal justice system. Which is what he did. Obviously, this has provoked plenty of negative reaction.

"I think that's ridiculous — it's such a big charge," said Latanya Powell, a construction worker on the block. "It's just going overboard. I can see if it were a weapon and harm was done, but it was just a snowball.

"This is a case of kids being kids."

Boys will be boys, but that's only acceptable if they don't extend their natural mischievousness to include this particular uniformed manchild. Once you cross that line -- a line only a cop can see -- you're finished. Say goodbye to childhood and hello to a criminal record that will affect you for years to come.

Not everyone was as nonplussed as Latanya Powell. Local idiot educator Ray Fields felt this was a totally appropriate response to snowball-throwing.

"If [the boy] had gotten away with it, who's to say what they'd do next? If it doesn't stick to them now, they'll be 16 or 17, and they'll have a gun," Fields said, adding that he has experience with local teens as a teacher and was the victim of a home burglary by neighborhood teens in 2010.

Hmm. Well, if we follow Fields' reasoning (and that of the unnamed cop), we arrive at a couple of conclusions, both equally asinine.

A. Throwing snowballs at authority figures is a gateway drug to a life of crime. (Because snowballs magically become guns when the snowball thrower hits "age 16 or 17.")

B. If a kid hitting a cop with a snowball is felonious battery, then kids everywhere are committing this crime -- repeatedly -- after every snowfall (with the attendant "snowballs lead to gunplay" concerns nowhere to be seen).

Conclusion A is a dead end. It's not unlike the assertion that because criminals play video games, playing video games leads to criminal acts. Many criminals threw snowballs at their friends and authority figures (adults, teachers, cops) during their formative years, therefore snowball throwing leads to criminal acts. Rather than punish criminal behavior, those deploying this stunted logic want to crack down on non-criminal behavior in the deluded hope of preventing future criminal acts. All the way wrong, all the way down.

Conclusion B just exposes the fact that there are multiple sets of rules in play at any given time: one for citizens, one for cops and one for when the two intersect. Johnny hits Timmy with a snowball and it's "playing." A cop hits another cop with a snowball and it's "playing." But Johnny hitting a cop with a snowball is a felony.

Hanging a felony charge on a kid for snowball throwing is not only completely absurd, it has a much greater chance of converting him to a criminal than his cop-targeting snowball throwing does. Way to go, law enforcement (and enablers like Ray Fields): you're generating scofflaws just as fast as you can trump up charges against them.

Filed Under: abuse, police

Police Chief To Critics Of Controversial Arrest: Hey, At Least My Officers Aren't Sexually Assaulting Arrestees

from the nicely-played,-Chief dept

When it takes four officers to apprehend a jaywalker -- a very tiny jaywalker at that -- how do you defend your department's actions? Well, if you're the Austin police department, you try several diversionary tactics ranging from bad to horrendous.

Here's the setup. A Texas woman out jogging boldly crossed the street far from the lawful corners. This attracted the attention of two Austin PD officers who yelled at her to stop. When she failed to submit to their authority (most likely because she would have assumed that [if she even heard it over her earbuds] -- like any other person crossing the street -- shouts of "Austin police! Stop!" were intended for someone doing something much more dangerous/criminal), they stepped up their pursuit, ultimately grabbing her arm and demanding she provide some identification.

She further enraged the jaywalking patrol by a.) pulling her arm out of the cop's grasp and b.) refusing to provide an ID card or drivers license. This turned jaywalking into an arrest for (if you guessed "jaywalking," you're wrong)... "failure to identify."

Is that even a thing? Well, yes it is, but no, not in this case. Here's the part of the statute that applies to the events in question.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

According to the report, the cops grabbed her arm and demanded ID. She refused. At that point, she wasn't under "lawful arrest." She was being (informally) detained, but not arrested. Police in Texas can't just demand you show them ID. Ex-Cop Law Student breaks it down further.

OK, it is fairly simple. If you are under arrest [and] refuse to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address, you commit a Class C misdemeanor unless you have warrants outstanding, when it is a Class B misdemeanor. If you are either under arrest or lawfully detained, it is an offense to provide a false name, date of birth or address. The later is a Class B or A misdemeanor, dependent on whether you have outstanding warrants.

What is not an offense is refusing to provide your name, date of birth, or residence address when you are lawfully detained.

So, now that we know the Austin PD doesn't really know the law its using to charge the jaywalker, let's get to the defensive tactics.

First, from the Austin PD's PR department:

The Daily Texan reached out to the Austin Police Department, where police spokeswoman Lisa Cortinas said police were working on “pedestrian enforcement.” Cortinas maintained that police weren’t targeting jaywalkers specifically, but instead focusing on pedestrian and bike safety overall.

Police Chief Art Acevedo backed this up:

Police Chief Art Acevedo says there is a lot more to the story. The officers were working on an initiative to cut down on pedestrian and bicycle violations. This week, they are focusing on jaywalkers.

Oh, OK. Officers are now busting jaywalkers because it's the sort of thing the PD has generally overlooked in the past. Now, it's apparently overcorrecting.

Here's a second department spokesperson with more on the APD's "pedestrian enforcement" initiative.

“I don’t think there’s any [jaywalking] initiative going on out there,” a second spokeswoman said.

OK. Um... The APD, contrary to statements made by another spokesperson and the Chief himself, is no longer pursuing the jaywalking initiative, if indeed, it ever was. But don't worry, citizens. These courageous cops have managed to capture the head of the city's worst jaywalking gang. No one needs to cross at the corner in fear any more.

But contradictory claims aren't the only trick up the APD's sleeve. Here's Austin PD chief Art Acevedo attempting to tell the outraged public just how ridiculous it is to be making noise about this arrest.

First, he notes how he would have played the hardass card right out of the gate.

"This person absolutely took something that was as simple as "Austin Police – Stop!' and decided to do everything you see on that video," Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo at a press conference this afternoon. "And quite frankly she wasn't charged with resisting. She's lucky I wasn't the arresting officer, because I wouldn't have been as generous."

Well, I guess Austin citizens are fortunate you're only running the department rather than slapping additional bogus charges on jaywalkers. But Chief Acevedo has more, because the spoiled citizens of Austin truly have no idea how lucky they are that Austin's finest are patrolling the streets.

"In other cities there's cops who are actually committing sexual assaults on duty, so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy in Austin, Texas."

Hear that, Austinites? YOU COULD BE BEING RAPED BY AUSTIN POLICE OFFICERS BUT YOU'RE NOT, ARE YOU? SHUT. UP.

To be fair (certainly not because he's earned it), Acevedo did apologize for the "you could be being sexually assaulted" comment. But he did so in the most self-serving way possible.

Yesterday's press conference related to the arrest of a jogger by members of the Austin Police Department (APD) was the culmination of an emotional week for the APD, our extended APD family and me personally.

During the press conference I attempted to place the arrest into context by bringing attention to the fact that law enforcement deals with many acts of serious misconduct. This includes recent instances in the news of sexual assault by police officers in other cities.

In hindsight I believe the comparison was a poor analogy, and for this I apologize. I stand committed to transparent leadership and will continue to engage the community we serve in an open, honest, and timely manner.

Sorry about the rough week there, pal. That's big city policing for you. If you're going to focus on penny ante jaywalking (that somehow requires a 4:1 cops-jaywalker ratio to enforce), then you can't be too surprised at the public's reaction. Citizens like proportionate responses. This wasn't one of them. And when it all gets too "emotional" to deal with rationally and your gut instinct is to tell the public they're lucky the Austin PD isn't sexually assaulting them, then it's going to take much, much more than a small "I had a bad week" apology to dig yourself out of that hole.

Filed Under: abuse, art acevedo, austin pd, police, texis

St. Louis Police Officers Caught Running Possibly Politically-Motivated Background Checks On Police Board Members

from the access-denied dept

The problem with access to other people's personal data is that the potential for misuse is ever present. This is inherent in any system, whether it's the NSA's or a local politician's -- simply because humans are humans. The solution is accountability, not layers of bureaucratic control. That's what appears to be the focus in this story of alleged background check abuse by St. Louis County police officers, which is a good start.

Two St. Louis county police officers who were assigned to the detail of County Executive Charles Dooley have had their access to a criminal database suspended while an investigation over whether they were running unauthorized background checks, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The officers are specifically accused of running such a check on a former candidate for the police board, a body that’s theoretically supposed to supervise officers.

Internal affairs is now investigating the two officers in order to determine why it was accessed and if there was any additional abuse. County police chief Tom Fitch found himself questioning the motivations and actions of these two officers after they were inadvertently "outed" by a member of Dooley's office.

Questions first arose in October when Dooley’s chief of staff, Garry Earls, announced to the county council that a criminal background check into former police board candidate David Spence had come back clean, County Chief Tim Fitch said.

Fitch said he had questioned how the county administration would know that information because he didn’t believe it was his officers’ place to run the checks.

Officers running background checks on their own supervisors isn't a good idea, especially when it gives the unauthorized access the appearance of being politically motivated -- and possibly ordered by a county official. (This has been denied, of course.) Simply running a check for any other reason than "criminal justice" is itself illegal. And now Fitch is trying to figure out who else these officers have "checked out" in violation of policy.

At this point, the two officers must ask a supervisor to run names for them and have no access to the REGIS database. Until further details emerge, this at least prevents misuse by the two accused of unauthorized access. Whether there's evidence of more abuse remains to be seen. On the downside, Chief Fitch is being rather cagey with details on how much abuse has been uncovered.

Fitch would not say how many names the officers ran during their time assigned to Dooley’s detail, citing the ongoing internal investigation.

“The number (of names) isn’t important,” he said. “What’s important is why it was done and who asked them to do it.”

Understandably, some details need to be withheld during an ongoing investigation, but Fitch is a bit off when he says the total number isn't important. Checks that complied with department policy obviously don't matter, so it's only the total number that fall outside compliance that anyone's worried about. That number matters just as much as the "why." The "who" behind it matters as well, although the accused officers still had the option to say "no" if they were indeed asked to break the rules.

While it's refreshing to see a police chief unwilling to downplay his officers' misconduct, the intensity must be maintained not only through this investigation, but going forward to ensure incidents like these become rarer and rarer. And if it turns out that the database was frequently misused, the consequences need to be as severe as the abuse.

Filed Under: abuse, background checks, police, politics, st. louis

Dianne Feinstein: NSA Would Never Abuse Its Powers Because It's 'Professional'

from the your-logical-fallacy-is...66t4r dept

Senator Dianne Feinstein, as we've noted, seems to have this weird blindness to even the very idea that the NSA might abuse its powers, despite a long history of it doing exactly that. The history of the US intelligence community is littered like a junk yard with examples of massive abuses of power by intelligence folks. And yet, Feinstein seems shocked at the idea that anyone questions the NSA's ability to abuse the system. Why? Because the NSA is "professional." Appearing on Meet the Press this weekend, Feinstein just kept repeating how "professional" the NSA is as if that was some sort of talisman that wards off any potential of abuse. First, host David Gregory pointed to reporter Bart Gellman's claim that President Obama's NSA reforms will allow for the expansion of the NSA's collecting personal data on "billions of people around the world, Americans and foreign citizens alike" and told Feinstein that didn't seem like it was protecting people's privacy. And Feinstein went straight to her "but they're professionals!" argument:

Well, I would disagree with Mr. Gellman. I think that what the president has said is that he wanted to maintain the capability of the program. That, as Chairman Rogers said, it has not been abused or misused. And it is carried out by very strictly vetted and professional people.

Of course it has been "abused" and "misused," but let's not let details get in the way.

Later in the interview, Gregory asks Feinstein to comment on Rep. Mike Roger's totally unsubstantiated (and contradicted by nearly everyone else in the know) claims that Ed Snowden was working for Russian intelligence, and Feinstein bizarrely returns to talking about just how "professional" NSA staffers are.

DAVID GREGORY:
And do you agree with Chairman Rogers that he may have had help from the Russians?

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN:
He may well have. We don't know at this stage. But I think to glorify this act is really to set sort of a new level of dishonor. And this goes to where this metadata goes. Because the N.S.A. are professionals. They are limited in number to 22 who have access to the data. Two of them are supervisors. They are vetted. They are carefully supervised. The data goes anywhere else. How do you provide that level of supervision?

Of course, Ed Snowden was also "vetted" and "professional." And Feinstein seems to think he may have been working for the Russians, which seems to suggest that any of the other "vetted" and "professional" NSA employees might be abusing their position as well. And, I mean, I'm sure the NSA analysts who listened in on phone sex calls between Americans and then shared them around the office were also "vetted" and "professional."

In fact, I'd think pretty much the entirety of human history concerning intelligence efforts suggests that abuse is almost always carried out by people who are "vetted" and "professional." And that's exactly what has most people so concerned about these programs and what the NSA is doing. No matter how well-meaning, well-trained or well-vetted people are, the temptation and ability for abuse is way too strong. Just last week, we were quoting a bunch of "vetted" and "professional" NSA folks talking about how they fantasized about murdering Ed Snowden. Those comments don't sound particularly professional at all. They sound like people who shouldn't be allowed within miles of people's private data. But Feinstein apparently sees no problems with those kinds of people having the ability to search through your private data. Because they're "professional."

Filed Under: abuse, david gregory, dianne feinstein, nsa, professionalism

Revelations About Massive UK Police Corruption Shows Why We Cannot -- And Must Not -- Trust The Spies

from the trust-no-one dept

As Mike reported recently, the NSA has presented no credible evidence that its bulk metadata collection is stopping terrorist attacks, or keeping people safe. Instead, the argument in support of the secret activities of the NSA and its friends abroad has become essentially: "Trust us, we really have your best interests at heart." But that raises the question: Can we really do that? New revelations from The Independent newspaper about massive and thorough-going corruption of the UK police and judiciary a decade ago show that we can't:

The entire criminal justice system was infiltrated by organised crime gangs, according to a secret Scotland Yard report leaked to The Independent.

In 2003 Operation Tiberius found that men suspected of being Britain's most notorious criminals had compromised multiple agencies, including [UK tax and customs services] HM Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, the City of London Police and the Prison Service, as well as pillars of the criminal justice system including juries and the legal profession.

If an entire criminal justice system can be corrupted so completely, there's no reason to believe that agencies like the NSA or the UK's GCHQ are immune. After all, they have the same ethos of serving the public that supposedly prevents them from betraying the trust placed in them (but didn't in the case of the UK police), and the same kind of privileged access to important and valuable information that inevitably makes them attractive targets for blackmail and bribery.

Snowden showed us in a dramatic fashion just how easy it is for an individual to access and copy top secret material. In his case, we are fortunate that his strong moral principles led him to reveal the abuses he found, rather than selling them to the highest bidder. Next time we may not be so lucky, so we need to build a system that assumes people are weak or corrupt, and make it as hard as possible for them to get away with any unauthorized use of the system. Despite what the NSA and GCHQ would like, that requires not trust, but its exact opposite.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: abuse, corruption, law enforcement, organized crime, police, uk