Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Privacy Cellphones Iphone Security Your Rights Online

LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones 391

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This discussion has been archived.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.

  • 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...
  • 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.
  • by Assmasher ( 456699 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:22PM (#36560530) Journal 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?

  • by AdmiralXyz ( 1378985 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:24PM (#36560546)
    "all rights to individual privacy"? No, of course not. No one is arguing that we should have the right to watch police officers or government officials when they're at home with their kids, that's stupid. We're saying there should be no expectation of privacy while they're on the job performing a public service, with public money.
  • by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:24PM (#36560552)

    Your scenario is completely different. There are even case law rulings to back up the fact that public servants in public do not have a right to privacy. These states and cities who abuse wiretapping laws to stop people from taking public videos of cops should be punished for gross misuse of the legal system.

  • by DeadCatX2 ( 950953 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:27PM (#36560586) Journal

    should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government?

    When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

    Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

    When they are on-the-job, yes. Unless they go to the bathroom.

    Oh, btw, there's nothing secret about recording police officers, it's pretty obvious you've got some sort of recording device.

    Oh, btw2, it's been ruled by courts that employers are allowed to dig through any of your shit that the company owns, like your company cell phone to see who you've been texting.

  • Re:vehicle cams (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dougmc ( 70836 ) <> on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:27PM (#36560588) Homepage

    Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs

    Really, what they're afraid of is evidence of their wrongdoing being used against them.

    Think the Rodney King incident []. The police were acquitted, though it seems to most that they should have been convicted.

    Having their actions recorded by citizens takes some of the power away from the police and puts it in the hands of the citizens -- and police don't like giving up power. THAT is what they're afraid of.

    They might claim that they're afraid of retaliation by gangs or something else, but that's not the real reason they don't like being recorded. They don't like being recorded because nobody likes being recorded when these recordings might be used against them later.

  • by Assmasher ( 456699 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:28PM (#36560590) Journal

    I think it depends largely upon the influence/authority/power that position holds, and if we're discussing recording an interaction between the employee and a member of the public.

    You should be able to record any interaction with a government representative that you interact with during the execution of their duties unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent it.

    Personally, I've never heard a legitimate reason for why someone shouldn't be able to record police/public interactions.

  • Re:Oy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @05:28PM (#36560592) Journal

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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 gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:23PM (#36561430)

    Technically, I agree with you. But just to play the devil's advocate, should a government employee be expected to give up all rights to individual privacy just because they work for the government? Would you say the same of an office worker who found out they were being secretly recorded by their boss?

    If we are in an equal position, they have every right to privacy. However, the fact is that in case there is some disagreement that ended up in court, the policeman's word would be believed over mine, because he is a policeman. Therefore, I must insist that he doesn't have a right to privacy, because I must to be able to record the true situation, to record factual evidence that would be believed over the word of a policeman.

  • Re:Oy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2011 @06:31PM (#36561552)

    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...

  • 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:Funny... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cwix ( 1671282 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @08:13PM (#36562754)

    Good cops should stop protecting the bad ones then. If they are good cops then they would be fighting for justice, irregardless if the injustice comes from inside or outside their department.

    If you need sources for "good" cops protecting bad ones, a Google search will easily supply relevant results.

  • 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. [] []

    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.

  • by Duradin ( 1261418 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @09:36PM (#36563484)

    So if the cop had said that a guy shouldn't walk around with a stack of 100s sticking out of his pocket to avoid getting rolled you'd be up in arms too, right?

    Does dressing like a slut mean an unvoiced consent to sexual advances? No. Does it mean someone dressed like a slut deserved getting raped? No. Does being female absolve you of all consequences? No. If a white guy walked through a black neighborhood with a "I Love the KKK" shirt and a trucker hat that looked like a klan hood and was beaten to a bloody pulp I bet you'd say he deserved it.

    Also, I didn't see a "deserved to be raped" in the linked article just "One of the safety tips was for women not to dress like âsluts.'" so [Citation Needed] on the deserve statement.

  • by jeko ( 179919 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @10:22PM (#36563846)

    That "Don't dress like a slut" comment came right out of the bad old days of rape legal defense. Defense attorneys used to work two arguments:

    1. Every woman consents to be raped. "You cannot thread a moving needle," was quoted in every courtroom, and to some extent still is. She wouldn't have been raped if she had really objected to it. She wasn't resisting. If it really was so terrible, a good woman would have made him kill her first.

    2. Even if she didn't consent to be raped, she provoked it. She came on to him. She dressed slutty. She was drinking, so she was looking for it. She asked for it, she got it, she deserved it. He's the real victim here. She's one of those bad women who prey on men's natural weakness. Look at what her accusation is doing to his good family...

    Does dressing like a slut mean an unvoiced consent to sexual advances? No. Does it mean someone dressed like a slut deserved getting raped? No. Does being female absolve you of all consequences? No.

    Yup, you're trying to sound reasonable, but there's that second argument again. There are consequences to dressing sexy, and she's responsible for them. Mess with the bull and you'll get the horn. Some women are sluts, some women dress like sluts, some women are asking for it...

    Do you really think how a woman is dressed matters to a rapist? "Oh, well that's a tasteful and professional look from Donna Karan, so clearly this woman is off-limits to me..." You don't have to be dressed slutty to get raped. You just have to be weaker than your attacker.

    Of course, what really worries me is this mind-set you've got going that a woman shouldn't be absolved for provoking a rape. "Well, she turned him on, so she got what was coming to her." Follow that train of thought long enough, and you end up dressing the women in burkas -- and it's still not enough.

    Come on now, 'fess up a little. Time for some soul-searching maybe. When you see a hot woman, and you know you can't have her, it makes you just a little bit frustrated, and maybe a little bit angry, doesn't it?

  • by ooshna ( 1654125 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @03:24AM (#36565500)

    Sorry but this is a little retarded. If you leave your front door wide open when you leave for work there is a much better chance that when you come home your place will be ransacked. Its it right you got robbed no not at all but I bet when the thief was looking for a place to hit it was the house with the wide open door that got his attention. When you dress slutty your drawing a lot of sexual attention to yourself. Which in turn raises the risk of unwanted sexual attention. If the cop said to wear reflective clothing when riding your bike in the dark to avoid getting hit by cars it would be the same thing. Would you then hate this cop so much. "How dare he tell me what kinda cloths people should wear. It shouldn't matter if he was wearing all black when he got hit by that car.." You know if he was giving a talk on how to aviod unwanted hugs from children would it have been wrong for him to say not to wear a Spongebob costume?

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.