Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Cellphones Iphone Security Your Rights Online

LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones 391

Posted by Soulskill
from the sunlight-is-the-best-disinfectant dept.
jfruhlinger writes "People are starting to comb through the details of the law enforcement documents made public by LulzSec. Blogger Kevin Fogarty noticed one interesting trend: The cops seem very anxious about iPhones, particularly apps that would allow encounters with police officers to be recorded. Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones

Comments Filter:
  • Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DMFNR (1986182) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:07PM (#36560320)

    Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.

    • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Funny)

      by syntheticmemory (1232092) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:09PM (#36560350)
      What have they got to hide, some illegal activity?
      • by Luckyo (1726890)

        Granted this is US and some of it is justified, but in most countries with actual proper police force that is respected by people, sometimes a recorded fairly small error by a police officer can and WILL be blown out of proportion by yellow press.

        Example: slut walks.

        As a result, yes, their concern is justified.

        • by jeko (179919) on Friday June 24, 2011 @09:06PM (#36563228)

          At my work, I'm responsible for various chunks of municipal infrastructure that carry Big Important Messages such as "We need a doctor right now," "This cop needs help," "This firefighter's in trouble," etc.

          When I was hired, I had to sign a fifty-page document that agrees to the following. The cameras pick me up when I get within 100 feet of the office, they stay on me every minute of every day and the video is archived for years. I agree to audio recordings at any time. My ID badge is trackable and my movements recorded. While I am acting as a representative and employee of this company, all communications of any kind are company property. I have no expectations of privacy at all while I am acting on behalf of the company. All phone calls -- cell, landline and voip -- are recorded. Every keystroke is logged. All emails and IMs are stored. For the 9-12 hours a day that I am doing my job, there is no such thing as a "personal" conversation.

          If I make a mistake of any kind -- whether it had consequences or not -- the company is within their rights to fire me on the spot without recourse. I have agreed to mediation, meaning I cannot take my employer to court and I will lose any disagreements. If I make a mistake anyone notices, the company will cheerfully feed me to the customer's lawyers.

          All of this because my actions carry a risk of liability for the company and a theoretical risk to human life.

          Why on Earth shouldn't someone who carries live ammunition be held to at least the same standard? If Seal Team Six can do their jobs on camera with a live mike, why can't local law enforcement?

          And by the way, that "Slut Walk" comment came from a Toronto police officer who implied that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut. [msn.com]

          http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110217/police-slut-comment/20110217/?hub=OttawaHome [ottawa.ctv.ca]

          A Toronto police officer who told a gathering of university students that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts" has issued an apology.

          Mark Pugash, director of communications for the Toronto Police Service, said the officer would send a written letter of apology to faculty and students at York University for inappropriate comments made at the university's Osgoode Hall Law School.

          The officer in question sent a written apology to the school later on Thursday.

          Pugash said the officer had also been disciplined internally.

          The comments were reportedly made during a campus safety meeting on Jan. 24.

          Speaking as a brother, a husband and a father of daughters, the boy that made that comment has no business being allowed out on his own, let alone wearing a badge.

          I don't care if a woman is a professional crack whore, a rape victim deserves your utmost sympathy, respect and compassion. You treat both the victims and the topic at large as if God and Mary Magdalene were personally going to hold you accountable for absolutely everything.

          If you can't understand that, you have no business being in mixed company, let alone mine. I hope to God you don't share a uniform with anyone in my family.

          • And by the way, that "Slut Walk" comment came from a Toronto police officer who implied that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut. [msn.com]

            No, that's not what he "implied". You quoted what he said:

            A Toronto police officer who told a gathering of university students that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts" has issued an apology.

            When women expose primary or secondary sexual characteristics to men, some of the men are going to lack the impulse control to keep

    • You could even use, say, the word "ironic" or "Ironically" to describe this, couldn't you? If only the article had such a term to help point out this contradiction.
    • by 246o1 (914193)

      I see you're going for the rare "Redundant First Post." Bold.

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.

      What expectation of privacy does a police officer have when engaged in the public enforcement of the law?

      I'm not a lawyer, I'm genuinely curious.

      • by jhoegl (638955)
        Yeah, that is the part I do not get about the power to arrest someone for recording the police.
        They are in a public place, performing a public service act. It is no different the recording any other public service. Checks and balances my friends.
        Has the USA really become China? Are we, in fact, in a police state now?
        None of this bodes well for our citizens, and in the end, the government will lose.
    • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Paracelcus (151056) on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:12PM (#36561240) Journal

      They (law enforcement) REALLY, REALLY HATE IT when the get caught on tape (so to speak) committing murder, beating the helpless, framing citizens, violating the "laws" they are sworn to uphold, yup it pisses them off!

      Just a little "for instance" in San Jose, CA some year back two burly young 200lb plus officers wearing body armor responded to a "disturbance" at the home of a 4' 10" tall 88lb woman who it turned out had psychological issues, she had not taken her medications and was panicking because her child had become locked in the bathroom, she had been using an Asian-style vegetable peeler to try to pry open the door, when the aforesaid burlies saw the peeler they "thought it was a cleaver" and as we know two large men are no match for a distraught 89 pound woman! The officers, "fearing for their lives" opened fire and shot the lady many, many times (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable) at point blank range!

      IMHO, these men are COWARDS, SOCIOPATHS AND MURDERERS, but of course they were rewarded with paid leave and a pat on the back!

      Land of the free & home of the brave!
      But you can be shot dead anytime for anything or nothing at all!
      http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CopsOutofControl#p/u/1/QwWJeAnobeY [youtube.com]

      • Re:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Obfuscant (592200) on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:49PM (#36561782)

        (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable)

        I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.

        Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.

        Second, "shooting to wound" would become a less-than-deadly force option, which means it would be justified in more cases. You'd have more officer-involved shootings, not less. And more people would die because "shooting to wound" sometimes results in death.

        So no, you do NOT want to teach cops to "shoot to wound" because you'd not be happy with the results.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Even in civilian defense classes, you're never taught to "shoot to wound". At least not by any competent instructor.

          If your life is in danger, and it's time to shoot, you shoot for maximum effect. If your life isn't in danger, you don't shoot at all.

          You always assume that if you discharge your firearm, there's going to be life threatening injury or death. There's no dancing around the issue. Furthermore, being able to reliably hit center-mass, on a moving target, with adrenaline pumping, in low li
        • (cops NEVER shoot to wound or disable)

          I want to make it clear I am replying ONLY to this comment, not anything else in the parent.

          Shooting to wound or disable would be admitting that the use of deadly force was not necessary. Shooting is supposed to be justified on those grounds.

          Plus, shooting to wound or disable is HARD! Trying to put a bullet into someone in a deliberate attempt to hit a non-vital area pretty much means that you are quite likely to miss entirely (hands, feet, arms, legs are much smalle

  • by FudRucker (866063) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:09PM (#36560346)
    none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand? they are public servants out in public serving the public, no chance of privacy, the sooner they get this trough their head the better behaved the police will be and the less chance of law abiding citizens being brutalized...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:00PM (#36561076)

      I used to install DVR systems in cop cars. One of the options was a pre-record, so when video starts recording it actually includes up to 3 minutes prior. When an agency decided to turn this option all the cops went crazy (literally screaming at people about it, including me) saying it was invasion of privacy. I brought up the question of expectation of privacy when on duty in a patrol car, and that just incited them further. Needless to say cops seem overly concerned with their own privacy and think even when on duty in city owned vehicles there is an expectation of privacy.

    • by digitig (1056110) on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:13PM (#36561264)

      none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand?

      I think they understand perfectly well. They just don't give a damn.

  • ...to record which apps and what data was recently accessed.

  • Oy (Score:4, Informative)

    by NoKaOi (1415755) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:17PM (#36560454)
    First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority). And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.
    • by dcollins (135727)

      "And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong?"

      If A, then B.
      Not B.
      Therefore not A.

      • Modus Tollens at work. ^_^
      • by NFN_NLN (633283)

        "And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong?"

        If A, then B.
        Not B.
        Therefore not A.

        This reminds me of the quote from "American Beauty":

        Lester Burnham: Then I guess I'll have to throw in a sexual harassment charge.
        Brad Dupree: Against who?
        Lester Burnham: Against YOU. Can you prove that you didn't offer to save my job if I let you blow me?
        Brad Dupree: Man, you are one twisted fuck.
        Lester Burnham: Nope; I'm just an ordinary guy who has nothing left to lose.

        Can the police prove they didn't beat the suspect.... they could if they had video evidence of them not doing it :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      All cops are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws. Anyone who enforces an unjust law is a bad person.

      If cops want respect, they should first put their effort into making a government that is respectible. Only then can police be respected.

      • Agreed. If they joined before the unjust laws, they can always quit/retire, or leak information anonymously to the media. If they joined after, then they are truly horrible people.
      • Then all politicians are bad for making those laws, and all people are bad for voting in those politicians.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No shit? That is the exact point.

          How have you not noticed that 99.99% of all people are complete and utter retards and blind cattle. They are just a fraction of an inch away from drooling all over themselves for lack of motion control. And you expect them to make educated decisions... an a 100% fake charade that you call "politicans" and "voting".

          Holy shit Batman...

      • by feepness (543479)

        If cops want respect, they should first put their effort into making a government that is respectible. Only then can police be respected.

        Theoretically that extends to those paying their salaries... ie: taxes.

        Unless you are actively working against it, you are tacitly supporting it every payday.

      • by melikamp (631205)
        All tax-payers are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws, and tax-payers will be charged with financing those cops. Anyone who finances the enforcement of an unjust law is a bad person. Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning?
    • by Khyber (864651)

      Hey, if the cops that aren't doing anything wrong don't want their asses exposed, then they need to stand up and fucking deal with the bad cops.

      Until they begin doing that, however, the police themselves should be treated as if they were children.

    • First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody.

      That still seems problematic to me. If I am being arrested for, say, burglary, why should the cops need access to whatever personal data is on my phone? Unless a cop can show some sort of link between the phone and the alleged crime, it seems like a pretty invasive and inappropriate search to me. It's not like the cop is going to get HIV from my phone or anything.

      Last I checked, even when you get arrested you have some rights (albeit fewer than a free man). So why would the default assumption be that yo

      • by Obfuscant (592200)

        That still seems problematic to me. If I am being arrested for, say, burglary, why should the cops need access to whatever personal data is on my phone?

        If you had an accomplice, it is likely that his name and phone number will be in your phone. Maybe the name and number of your fence. I'd say that there was sufficient probable cause for a warrant to search your phone. After all, they're also going to get a warrant to search your house for stolen property.

        Last I checked, even when you get arrested you have some rights (albeit fewer than a free man). So why would the default assumption be that you surrender the right to a private phone when arrested for a crime not involving the phone?

        Dunno. Why are you making this assumption? The article talks about preserving potential evidence after an arrest but before the warrant is issued. You'll also lose your wallet and other contents of your

  • Fundamental trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by U8MyData (1281010) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:17PM (#36560462)
    There is no trust anymore, which in my opinion is killing the fabric of the country. Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. The government looks at us like a vast field of something to be harvested from rather than a collection of individuals, families, and businesses that rely on them to create conditions of security, prosperity, and liberty. Instead we get "you little people", "don't bother me", and "Don't you know who I am?" attitudes among other things. I don't know how to take things back, but it take a paradigm shift I fear.
    • Re:Fundamental trust (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Assmasher (456699) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:52PM (#36560982) Journal

      I don't know what America you are referring to where people trusted each other more than they do now. I can't imagine that there was much trust between cops and blacks in the south before the late 80's, or between immigrant populations in the big cities circa the turn of the century, et cetera...

      People are the same now as they have been for thousands of years - give people unchecked authority and corruption will reign. Recording the PUBLIC actions of police officers is a check on such abuse of authority. Imagine if you'd never seen the Rodney King beating. Would YOU have believed him?

    • by vinn01 (178295)

      Police duties have been radically altered in the past 50 years. Police are no longer protectors walking a beat or cruising in a neighborhood. Police are predators.

      Nothing brings out that fact better than the common sight of a police car hiding from plain view.

    • by Gryle (933382)
      Off-topic tangent: Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why we need to rely on the government to create conditions of prosperity for us. I thought the American Dream was that individuals create prosperity for themselves.
    • by brkello (642429)

      Holy smokes. Generalize much? Slashdot needs to get over this paranoid mentality. You guys read some article about something bad happening and all act like it happened to you...every day...for the past 10 years.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      This is GOOD. Proof is better than trust. Trust takes faith, proof uses logic.

      Trust is a tenet of religion.
      Proof is a tenet science.
      Choose one.

      "Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. "

      That's because they are the servants of the elites, even though they delude themselves otherwise. An honest cop should WANT to be recorded so they'd have PROOF to take to battle. An honest government should CRAVE transparency in order to trumpet its virtue.

  • by MrQuacker (1938262) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:17PM (#36560466)

    Because fuck you, that's why.

  • by Teun (17872) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:18PM (#36560482) Homepage
    In Arizona Apple is Evil.

    49 to go :)

  • Next Killer App (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaqenn (996058) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:22PM (#36560524)
    I say the next killer app is one that streams what you're recording to offsite storage so that it can't be confiscated by smashing your phone/camera. If there's not enough bandwidth it can scale down to sending keyframes and low quality audio and pad out the rest of the video when you stop recording.
  • by Assmasher (456699) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:22PM (#36560530) Journal

    ...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?

    The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.

    Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?

    • Why? Because every armchair quarterback with 20/20 hind-site will be on you like a pack of flies. Sure we all want to bust the Rodney King beaters, but who can justify every working moment at their jobs when the whole world gets to critique? it degenerates to "OMG! He just sat 4 8 hrs radaring speeders....go catch some real crims!!"

      • by Assmasher (456699)

        I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...

        Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.

    • by jgtg32a (1173373)
      Context, I've seen a million and one videos of a cops beating on some guy, but I very rarely see videos that shows the precursor.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:20PM (#36561364)

        I assume your logic goes like this
        "He deserved the shit kicked out of him. Look at what he did to the cops!!"

        My answer - Someone killed a cop, does that give the cop the right to kill them?
        If so, then just roll up judges and juries, do away with them, and be honest about it.

        The police are there to enforce the law.
        Enforce the law, not dispense justice - that's what judges and juries are supposed to do - and for good reason.

        When a cop beats someone, regardless of what the "beatee" did, it is a criminal offense. Sure, lots of police get away with it, or find justification for doing so, but that doesn't change it into something lawful.

        Rodney King (or whoever is getting beat today, or right this minute) may have been a thug, but even thugs are subject to a fair trial and justice meted out by a judge and jury. And if the person isn't a thug, and injustice is surely being given - isn't the travesty that much worse?

        Context may make someone's bad behavior more UNDERSTANDABLE, but it won't ever justify it.
        It appears you seem to misunderstand justification and understanding.

      • by Assmasher (456699)

        No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.

        I've seen a fair number of videos of police acting properly and a fair number where they act improperly - most of them had more than enough context to make that sort of judgement.

  • Network Storage? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:25PM (#36560562) Journal

    Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.

    • by pclminion (145572)

      Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.

      Isn't Apple working on some technology to allow movie theaters to remotely disable recording on any iPhone that happens to be in the theater? Yeah. "Movie theaters," that's who they're developing it for. Sure...

    • by sarhjinian (94086)

      Qik can sorta-kinda do this. Gandhicam definitely can, and I'd like to see it ported to iOS.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Ghandicam, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. That almost makes a smart phone an appealing item.

  • by IonOtter (629215) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:29PM (#36560598) Homepage

    ...is the document specifically instructing officers, that when they take an iPhone, for any reason, to stick it into a Faraday bag.

    The document specifically mentions the "Where's My iPhone" app, which can not only locate the phone, but remotely wipe the phone.

    Thereby making it useless for any kind of investigation. And because everything is backed up to iTunes, the owner can just re-sync their phone as soon as they get it back.

    Here's an excerpt from the faraday-bags.com website, emphasis mine...

    Our line of Black Hole Faraday Bags have been designed to aid police, military, and consultants in the collection, preservation, transport, and analysis of wireless evidence. Wireless devices such as cell phones, GPS, netbooks, bluetooth devices, laptops, etc. are shielded from cellular, WiFi, bluetooth and radio signals when inside of our faraday bags.

    Our newest Black Hole bag with a shielded USB 2.0 connection not only offers shielding for seizure and transport but analysis as well. In the past, shielded analysis has been limited to large and expensive enclosures, making shielded analysis in the field nearly impossible. Our Black Hole Data Bag is a truly unique and revolutionary product built to the demands of our customers.

    So even if it's inside the bag, they'll be able to slurp it without you or your friends/family being able to wipe it.

    • by Urza9814 (883915) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:45PM (#36560882)

      Next killer app: One that wipes your data if your phone isn't able to check in for a certain amount of time, or if it's connected via USB when there is no service available. True, most people wouldn't want that as they could accidentally lose something, but for people who legitimately have reason to fear police confiscation of their phone, it could be worth the risk.

  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:38PM (#36561646)
    Boy, those iPhones sure are pesky what with their ability to record video and whatnot. It's a good thing those sucky Android phones can't do things like that.

    Sorry. What's that?...

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...