NYPD Dodges Another Legislative Attempt To Inject Accountability And Transparency Into Its Daily Work

from the the-teflon-army dept

Law enforcement officers are pretty used to being able to stop nearly anyone and demand to know who they are and what they're doing. Sure, there are plenty of laws that say they can't actually do that, but the public is generally underinformed about their rights, and this works in cops' favor. As a recent Appeals Court decision pointed out, citizens are "free to refuse to cooperate with police before a seizure."

Obviously, this perfectly legal act of noncompliance just won't do, and it certainly won't be cops pointing out to citizens the rights they have available to them. New York City legislators thought they could force this transparency on the NYPD.

The bills, known as the Right to Know Act, require officers to identify and explain themselves when they stop people, and to make sure people know when they can refuse to be searched. These are timely, sensible ideas, echoing recommendations made by President Obama’s task force on 21st-century policing. Though the Right to Know Act has been bottled up in the Council for two years, it has broad support among Council members and community organizations, and sponsors say it would pass easily if it ever came to a vote.

It may have "broad support," but it didn't have support where it counts. Police Commissioner Bill Bratton expressed his displeasure with the idea of his officers having to respect the rights of citizens.

Mr. Bratton has denounced the Right to Know Act as an “unprecedented” intrusion into his domain.

As Scott Greenfield points out, Bratton could have dialed back his righteous indignation and applied these changes on his own.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton from telling his cops to do this anyway. But he didn’t. He won’t. It’s not as if he serves at the pleasure of New York’s most progressive mayor ever. But the big issue for Bratton isn’t that the ideas incorporated in the law are so dangerous and counterproductive, but cops just don’t like being told what they have to do.

"Broad support." "Would pass easily." None of this matters. The person in charge of routing pending legislation made this decision for the rest of the legislators who support the bill in its unaltered form.

But there has been no vote. The Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, essentially derailed it this month. She told members that she had quietly struck a compromise with the Police Department to adopt some, but not all, of the act’s reforms administratively. Under the deal, officers who want to search people but have no legal basis to stop them must ask permission and wait to hear “yes” or “no.” They have to explain that a person can refuse to be searched, and give a business card to people who are searched or stopped at a checkpoint or to anyone who asks.

Waiting for the NYPD to "adopt" reforms is like waiting to adopt a child. Days become weeks become months become years. Three years after Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the NYPD to alter its unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program, officers still weren't fully informed of the new guidelines. The NYPD's "quiet adoption" of the agreement is more in line with dumping it into a foster home run by negligent caretakers.

The government has long depended on the ignorance of the citizens to maintain control. The killing of this legislation -- and Bratton's agreement to make it watered-down internal policy rather than actual law -- is more of the same. The less the public knows about what the police can or cannot demand from them, the more often this ignorance will be exploited by people with power.

Filed Under: bill bratton, nyc, nypd, right to know, transparency

Insanity Rules: Disgusting Politicians Push For More Surveillance And Less Encryption... Based On Nothing

from the make-it-stop dept

Yesterday we noted that the surveillance state supporters were quick to rush in and blame Ed Snowden and call for undermining encryption in response to the attacks in Paris last week -- and they did so based on no factual information whatsoever. There was, briefly, a NY Times article quoting anonymous "officials" claiming that the attackers had communicated via encrypted channels. That article eventually disappeared entirely (with no explanation from the NY Times). If that's true, it would not be surprising, because terrorist groups have long used encryption -- as have tons and tons and tons of law abiding folks. Blaming encryption seems particularly dumb.

And, indeed, on Monday it was made clear that no one actually has any idea how the planning was done and there isn't yet known evidence of encryption:

A U.S. security official said there is no evidence yet demonstrating that the Paris attackers used a particular method for communicating, or whether any technology they used was encrypted in a particular way.

Of course, that statement is as meaningless as the one from the anonymous official claiming they did use encryption, because it's just a random namely "official." And, of course, it wouldn't be surprising at all if they did use encryption, because that's how people communicate safely. And it's not because of Snowden. As we noted yesterday, terrorists have known to use encrypted communications for well over a decade.

Still, none of this has stopped the insane grandstanding on the issue. CIA Director John Brennan kicked it off by taking a potshot at Snowden along with privacy advocates and tech companies -- again, based on nothing:

"In the past several years, because of a number of unauthorized disclosures and a lot of handwringing over the government’s role in the effort to try to uncover these terrorists, there have been some policy and legal and other actions that are taken that make our ability collectively, internationally to find these terrorists much more challenging," he said. "I do hope that this is going to be a wake-up call particularly in areas of Europe where I think there has been a misrepresentation of what the intelligence security services are doing by some quarters that are designed to undercut those capabilities."

Brennan also ridiculously claimed that the terrorists had "gone to school" based on the Snowden disclosures, which again, defies all logic and historical reporting of how widely encrypted communications were used prior to this.

And then all the usual fear mongerers started to pile on. Let's start with the surveillance state's number one defender, Senator Dianne Feinstein:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said she’s asked Silicon Valley companies to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies access communications that have been encrypted -- or scrambled to evade surveillance -- if terrorists are using the tools to plan attacks.

“I have asked for help. And I haven’t gotten any help,” Feinstein said Monday in an interview with MSNBC. “If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it’s at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that’s a big problem.”

But that's idiotic. Does she feel the same way about the telephone? Or paper? Or cars? These are all tools that terrorists use as well, but she's not calling for them to be broken. Blaming the tools is a ridiculous move -- especially for a politician who should know better.

But, of course, she wasn't the only one. Senator John McCain -- who once was a strong defender of encryption in the late 90's, has apparently gone to the other side as he's been taken by unrealistic fears:

Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on MSNBC Monday that "it’s time we had another key that would be kept safe and only revealed by means of a court order."

Except, of course, that doesn't work. And McCain has been told that won't work and will make everyone less safe... and yet he's still pushing for it.

Rep. Michael McCaul, chair of the House Homeland Security Committee got in on the stupid game as well:

“The dark space of the Internet is becoming a breeding ground for terrorist communications, recruitment and plotting,” said McCaul, a Texas Republican. “Our inability to monitor encrypted messages on social media apps, and the terrorists’ awareness of that, compounds the danger America and the West face.”

You know what would put us in even greater danger? Undermining encryption and giving up our keys.

NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton also repeated the nonsensical claim that tech companies, in better protecting users from hackers, were somehow helping the terrorists:

Technology has been "purposefully designed by our manufactures so that even they claim they cannot get into their own devices after they’ve built them," Bratton said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

"They need to work with us right now," Bratton said. "In many respects, they’re working against us."

All of this is based on a weird kind of idiocy. It's wrong on so many levels: (1) strong encryption helps protect citizens, not harm them; (2) terrorists already know how to use strong encryption and they have for years; (3) backdooring encryption won't stop people from using non-backdoored encryption; (4) there's still little to no evidence that snooping on everyone's communications actually stops any terrorist plots. But a big tragedy happened and thus, politicians feel like they need to "do something" and that "doing something" seems to be to attack the technology that actually makes us safer. It's insanity on a massive level.

And the press is playing right into it. The NY Times may have dropped that original story, but came back with one claiming that the attacks had "reopened the debate on encryption." No, they did not. The debate is over. Undermining encryption is dangerous and bad news for everyone. As we noted, the intelligence community's top lawyer, Robert Litt, flat out said just a few weeks ago that he and his friends were waiting for the next terrorist attack in order to push for backdoors in encryption. This is the playbook that was planned all along and most of the press is falling for it.

Thankfully, there are a few exceptions. Kim Zetter at Wired pointed out how the whole narrative is wrong and that backdooring encryption won't help at all. And Alex Howard at the Huffington Post put up a similar story. But for much of the mainstream press, they're playing right into the surveillance state's game plan, repeating the stupid talking points on encryption, based on zero actual facts, and then insisting that the debate is somehow open again.

There is no debate. Yes, the surveillance state supporters want to undermine our security and undermine encryption, but there's no actual debate here. Actual experts know that this is a bad move and a dangerous one that will put many more people at risk. Exploiting an attack in Paris (right after France expanded its own surveillance efforts) is hardly a good excuse for undermining the safety of basically everyone.

Filed Under: bill bratton, dianne feinstein, encryption, going dark, john brennan, john mccain, michael mccaul

NYPD Asks Disney, Marvel To Abuse IP Law To Help Rid Times Square Of Spiderman, Mickey Mouse

from the government-ordained-trolling dept

For years, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and the NYPD waged a small-scale war in Times Square to turn it into a family-friendly tourist attraction on par with Las Vegas. It succeeded... mostly. Porn shops were replaced with toy stores and chain restaurants.

The war continues, even after this overhaul. Anywhere tourists gather en masse will draw the attention of less-desirable city residents. Panhandlers and street performers continue to converge on Times Square, hoping to earn a few bucks from out-of-towners. Much to Bill Bratton and the NYPD's chagrin, Times Square continues to draw a disproportionate amount of New York City's boobs. And topless women.

[A]t midday Thursday, there were 38 costumed panhandlers, five topless ladies and an artist who paints people’s naked bodies in full view in Times Square...

The city is trying to figure out how to keep these topless women out of an area where tourists can also witness the spectacle that is the nationally-infamous Naked Cowboy. Nothing seems to be working especially well and any efforts targeting female toplessness specifically will obviously (and correctly) be hailed as sexist (and a possible violation of the First Amendment).

The other element it wishes to banish is a direct result of the city's decision to turn Times Square into Disneyland Lite: costumed street performers. Many dress as Disney/comic book characters and make money by charging tourists for photos with them. Some of these performers are known to become aggressive when photos are taken without "permission." (Read: in exchange for $$$) Others are known to commit more heinous acts.

There's been a series of incidents and arrests since then, including accusations of groping by Cookie Monster, and also Woody from "Toy Story."

Spider Man was arrested in 2014 for allegedly demanding tips in an aggressive manner. Earlier this year, a Youtube video went viral of another Spider Man locked in a brawl with a heckler right in front of Toys R Us.

So, New York is still New York even if Times Square isn't really Times Square anymore.

Police commissioner Bratton wants to add more officers... to enforce not much of anything, apparently.

Bratton said the unit was in the works for some time but was fast-tracked after the media began focusing on the desnudas and how their kind of panhandling can be “easily spread to other parts of the city.”

That said, Bratton added, “there’s only about one crime reported every day” in Times Square.

This new unit will patrol Times Square and attack "quality of life" issues… like painted women. Or intellectual property infringement.

The city’s top cop said Thursday they got the cold shoulder from Disney and Marvel when they tried to enlist them in the fight against the costumed characters preying on tourists in Times Square.

The NYPD specifically asked the companies if they wanted to charge the hustlers who wear Mickey Mouse, Spider-Man and other well-known costumes with copyright infringement.

Look! It's IP law abuse to the rescue, a favorite tactic of this IP-abusing city government.

First off, these costumed performers would more likely fall under trademark infringement than copyright infringement. The characters are covered under trademark law. Creative works using these characters are what's covered by copyright. But that distinction doesn't matter to these blustering officials. They're only concerned with enlisting the public to fight their battles for them. Any differences between copyright and trademark enforcement can be sorted out by Disney, Marvel, et al.

Fortunately, the companies seem less willing to abuse IP law to help out Bratton and the NYPD. Disney's lack of interest in filing lawsuits isn't altruistic, however. It won't participate with Bratton's plan because it doesn't know who these performers are. The amount of time and money spent to discover this would easily outweigh any compensation gained.

Disney -- being Disney -- prefers to have legislation written on its behalf.

The bill — which would require the horde of Spider-Men, Mickeys and Minnies and other costumed panhandlers to undergo background checks and carry IDs — was introduced back in September by Councilman Andy King (D-Bronx).

[...]

“We have been for years working with previous and current administrations as well as the City Council trying to get legislation passed that would require registration and identification of these costumed characters,” said Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha.

This would solve Disney's (and Marvel's) "problem" without either corporation having to look like an IP thug. But the legislation isn't going anywhere and Bratton wants his Time Square free of Mickeys and Spidermen now. So, he's asking these companies to file baseless and pointless lawsuits almost solely on behalf of Bratton and his cleanup crusade.

The city's top cop is also willing to let Disney, Marvel, etc. work for free.

“They want no part of it,” Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said on the John Gambling radio show. “We've encouraged Walt Disney, ‘Put your characters out on Broadway free of charge so people don't have to worry about their kids being groped,’” he said. “We said to them, effectively, ‘Since you control the rights of them, put them out in front of the Disney Theater.' They want no part of it.”

Disney and Bratton may not see eye-to-eye on the specifics of the solution, but they do agree on one aspect: someone else should do all the work.

The regulatory angle (licensing performers) Disney prefers puts the city and its police force to work for the companies. Bratton's suggestions (filing bogus copyright infringement lawsuits, "free" costumed performers) puts the companies to work for the city. As long as they only agree on this element, nothing will ever move forward.

And once again, we see that government entities -- like many private companies -- are quick to turn to abuse of IP protections once they've run out of good ideas -- or, in this case, when they didn't have any good ideas to begin with.

Filed Under: bill bratton, characters, copyright, mickey mouse, nypd, spiderman, times square, trademark
Companies: disney, marvel

How Not To Apologize: Detective Pat Cherry Of The NYPD's Joint Terrorism Task Force Edition

from the guys-this-totally-isn't-my-fault dept

Undercover cop (and former member of the FBI-NYPD Joint Terrorism Task Force) Patrick Cherry couldn't handle a civilian being uppity. So, he ranted and raved at an Uber driver, who had the temerity to suggest Detective Cherry signal his intention to park his vehicle (via a nonoffensive hand gesture), peppering his unrehearsed speech with obscenities and racial slurs.

Patrick Cherry may have been an elite detective (Commissioner Bill Bratton stripped him of his badge, gun and task force position after the incident), but he failed to arrive at one very obvious conclusion before he started slinging slurs and swear words: almost everyone carries a cellphone and almost every cellphone contains a camera. The entire incident was recorded by a passenger.

With this undeniable evidence that Detective Cherry is willing to abuse his position to threaten other drivers for questioning his driving skills/actions, the NYPD (and Cherry himself) had no option but to address it. As mentioned above, Commissioner Bratton kicked Cherry of the joint task force.

Of course, the detective's union boss felt compelled to blast Bratton for this "unprecedented punishment" in response to a "verbal discourtesy," perhaps inadvertently signalling that any punishment of NYPD detectives is "unprecedented." For reasons that only make sense to Detectives Endowment Association head Michael Palladino, he chose to compare this incident favorably to recent, high-profile officer-involved deaths.

"This is neither Ferguson nor Staten Island, but it is receiving equal attention."

Again, perhaps inadvertently signalling that any negative attention paid to his union's members is too much attention.

Commissioner Bratton fired back by stating the obvious.

"No good cop can watch that [video] without a wince," Bratton said when he announced Cherry's punishment. “That officer’s behavior reflected poorly on everyone who wears that uniform.”

The supposed state-of-emergency level of attention also forced Patrick Cherry to offer an apology for his behavior. But his "apology" deserves every scare quote appended to it.

"I apologize. I sincerely apologize," he said. "People shouldn't be treated that way. I let my emotions get the better of me and I was angry. My intention was to be courteous and then we got into an argument. There was no intention to berate or hurt deeply the driver."

It may not have been Cherry's "intention" to "berate or hurt deeply" the person on the other end of his rant, but that's what actually happened. Cherry may not always be angry and unhinged, but the video shows how little it takes to set him off. And if the video hadn't existed, Cherry would still be a badge-carrying member of an elite task force -- free to berate and hurt other citizens until outed on YouTube.

But then Cherry went on to blame his victim -- and for the lousiest reason: contempt of special FBI joint terrorism task force detective.

Cherry told the network he pulled over the Uber driver to "clarify the problem” and that the driver “got smart” when Cherry asked for his license and registration.

"When I walked up, I was uptight. I wanted to know what the problem was. What did I do that was so wrong that I had to get chastised?" Cherry said. "I felt his driving actions were discourteous and impolite and when he stopped he said, 'I'm not going to give you anything."'

All the driver asked was what he was being pulled over for. And Cherry refused to answer, choosing instead to berate the driver for not being a purebred American, among other things. If someone refuses to provide identification to an officer, it's well within their rights, unless the officer can give them a better reason than "because I said so." And if they are required to turn over identification, there are remedies for that, none of which involve banging on a vehicle and yelling at its driver.

Not only that, but being "discourteous and impolite" isn't a crime. If it was, New York City's jails would be even more well-stocked than they already are. It's just that some law enforcement officers believe it is, and will throw out a barrage of BS charges in hopes that one sticks.

This "apology" shows Cherry either isn't used to people questioning his authority or isn't capable of handling these situations with any amount of professionalism. His non-apology "apology" simply provides more evidence that Bratton's "unprecedented" decision to strip him of his badge and power was the correct thing to do.

The right way to apologize for an incident like this is to stop after you've admitted your actions were wrong and reflect badly on yourself and your position. Adding "but you have to understand, the guy was being a jerk" just makes you look like one of those people who routinely blame others for their own failings.

Filed Under: apologies, bill bratton, nypd, patrick cherry

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

NY Police Commissioner Bill Bratton Latest To Complain About Phone Encryption

from the law-enforcement-still-trending-at-100%-opposed dept

The latest law enforcement official to enter into the "debate" over phone encryption is none other than NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton, most famous around Techdirt for being "not Ray Kelly." Bratton sees eye-to-eye with pretty much every other critic of Google's and Apple's move to provide encryption by default: this is bad for us (meaning "law enforcement"), therefore new laws.

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton ratcheted up the rhetoric against Google and Apple Friday, vowing to push for legislation now that the tech giants have announced operating systems with encryptions that block law enforcement access.

“It does a terrible disservice to the public, ultimately, and to law enforcement, initially,” he said. “It really does impede our investigation of crimes.

That's some mighty fine spin by Bratton. Something that will make a vast majority of the public's data less susceptible to hackers' attacks is a "disservice to the public" because in a very small number of cases, this encryption could hamper an investigation. Because some criminals might use this encryption, no one should be allowed to have it.

Bratton also fired the following (cheap) shot across the bow of the cell phone giants, insinuating that the companies are profiting from law enforcement pain, deliberately.

“For them to consciously, for profit and gain, to thwart those legal constitutional efforts, shame on them.”

Businesses turn profits. Otherwise, they're not businesses (or not in business for long). Offering encryption by default does not -- in itself -- make Apple and Google more money. Nor does "thwarting legal constitutional efforts." It could actually be argued that this will cost both companies more money in the long run, considering they will both be facing additional legal challenges and very-specifically-targeted legislation.

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, who notes that he's in "lockstep" with Bratton's views, sounds like he's in lockstep with the former keepers of NYC's security state -- Ray Kelly and Michael Bloomberg -- when he opines that the balance between privacy and security should always be tilted towards law enforcement.

"I think that the balance, however ... can’t be one where saving people’s lives, solving serious crimes from child abuse to terrorism, is the price we have to pay for blanket privacy.”

I keep hearing "child abuse" and "terrorism," but keep envisioning law enforcement's desired encryption backdoor being used for the same thing Stingray devices and cast-off military gear are used for: plain vanilla drug warring and other assorted "normal" criminal investigations. Tears are shed over the pedophile who got away, but in practice, it's rarely anything more than Officer Smith flipping through the digital rolodex of some low-level meth dealer.

Filed Under: bill bratton, encryption, nypd, phone encryption, phones

NYPD Foils FOIL Request For NYPD FOIL Handbook

from the in-other-news,-NYPD-denies-it-exists,-forwards-requests-to-Mailboxes,-Etc. dept

The NYPD's approach to transparency has been negatively compared to the CIA, FBI and NSA by prominent investigative reporters, who noted that these other agencies will at least respond even if they're not particularly interested in kicking the requested documents loose. The NYPD often won't even respond, and when it does, it tends to drag the process out to the point of absurdity before finally deciding that no, it won't release the requested information.

Muckrock points out that NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton once stated, "there should be no secrets in the NYPD." The NYPD, under Ray Kelly (and apparently, going forward as well), has responded with, "Move along. There's nothing (EVER) to see here."

In what can only be described as a new low for the NYPD, it has denied Muckrock's FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) request for the NYPD's FOIL handbook.

I have written a number of times about ongoing difficulties with the New York Police Department's FOIL Unit. From rejecting routine requests to claiming "inability to locate" documents even when provided with a form number, NYPD seems hellbent on obstructing access to its records.

Last week, NYPD's freedom of information squad determined that its own handbook is exempt from disclosure under FOIL, New York's public records statute.

Somehow, the NYPD feels that attorney-client privilege applies to its internal handbook on FOIL requests and has used that exception to reach this illogical, Heller-esque nadir in department transparency. If Muckrock's challenge of the NYPD's rationale is denied, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for the tight-lipped department, as Shawn Musgrave points out.

I very much hope that a competent lawyer who is familiar with NYPD's obligations under FOIL prepared the department's records request manual and training materials. But just because something was prepared or reviewed by an attorney does not mean that an agency can withhold it. If this were true, the vast majority of policy documents prepared by any agency counsel would be immune from disclosure, as would most talking points memos, reports and communiques that endure lawyerly vetting. This is simply not how attorney-client privilege is meant to work.

It may be time for the DOJ to declare the NYPD a "rogue agency" (or whatever) and start steering the department back into the calmer waters of public service. It certainly fits the description. It apparently answers to nobody, routinely rewrites laws and guidelines to justify unconstitutional behavior and sends its uninvited personnel to the scenes of terrorist attacks around the world. Ray Kelly called it the seventh-largest standing army in the world, but it behaves more like a law unto itself.

Filed Under: bill bratton, foi, nypd, ray kelly, transparency

President Of CBS News Knew 'Reporter' John Miller Would Go Back To NYPD Before His 60 Min Propaganda Piece Aired

from the so-why-did-the-piece-still-air dept

So we've already discussed the massively conflicted John Miller, employed by CBS News while clearly being about to take a job in counterterrorism, reporting for 60 Minutes the most amazing pro-NSA propaganda infomercial you can imagine. At the time, the rumors were already swirling that Miller was about to take the job as head of counterterrorism for the NYPD, though he denied it. He also, laughably, insisted that he'd asked hard questions of the NSA, none of which made it to air (assuming he actually did ask hard questions). In response to all of this, Miller insulted his critics as not being real reporters (despite the fact many of them were), and then confirmed the big conflict that most people expected, taking the job that everyone knew he was going to take.

A NY Times piece on Miller notes that the offer to take the job was actually "informally" given to him over dinner with incoming police commissioner (and close friend of Miller) Bill Bratton on December 5th. That's a week and a half before 60 Minutes aired its piece. And, among the "everyone" who knew he was taking the job was... David Rhodes, the President of CBS News.

“As soon as the reports came out that de Blasio” -- Bill de Blasio, the city’s new mayor -- “was thinking of bringing Bratton back, I immediately assumed that John would be going too,” Mr. Rhodes said in an interview. “It was literally the first thing that I thought of.”

And yet... he still allowed Miller's highly conflicted story on the NSA to air. That raises all sorts of questions, especially for CBS News, whose editorial failings over the past few months have received a tremendous amount of attention.

Filed Under: 60 minutes, bill bratton, bill de blasio, cbs news, conflict of interest, david rhodes, john miller, nsa, nypd, propaganda
Companies: cbs