[HN Gopher] It's not easy to control police use of tech, even wi...
___________________________________________________________________
It's not easy to control police use of tech, even with a law
Author : BerislavLopac
Score : 83 points
Date : 2021-09-27 09:44 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I never understood the responsibility with organizations such as
| the police...
|
| I do something bad, I get punished and I pay the fine.
|
| John Smith the policeman does something bad, taxpayers pay the
| fine.
| gala8y wrote:
| I think major factor in use of all new tech by police is money
| which they pay for it. It's so lucrative that I would say, from
| the comfort of my armchair, that it basically boils down to greed
| and availability of this selling channel. This is the top reason
| (me thinks). Systemic thinking on possible impact of all of
| this... does not matter till money flows.
| lbriner wrote:
| I think there is a commonality with the UK Police that might not
| be there in France and Spain that have a different MO with
| investigations and have an invetigating judge.
|
| Michael Mansfield QC, a barrister wrote about this ages ago with
| the Birmingham 6, a famous miscarriage of justice that amounted
| to a beaten confession and prison time for innocent people. In
| the book he describes the problem that the police see themselves
| as the only frontline for law-and-order. They are under immense
| pressure for results from various political forces so they are
| given leaway to "break a few rules" and get the job done, after
| all, "We know he did it!"
|
| In France, my limited understanding, is that the police do not
| generally investigate but the investigation comes under a judge.
| They will use the police to gather evidence and interview people
| but the pressure for a result is on the judge and not the police.
| The judge should ensure that laws are followed because they are
| part of the judiciary. If the police are then told to use some
| tech or not, it has already been approved by a judge, otherwise
| they won't risk it themselves because why should they?
| philwelch wrote:
| > In France, my limited understanding, is that the police do
| not generally investigate but the investigation comes under a
| judge. They will use the police to gather evidence and
| interview people but the pressure for a result is on the judge
| and not the police. The judge should ensure that laws are
| followed because they are part of the judiciary.
|
| Police investigations in common law countries have judicial
| oversight, but it seems like a feature rather than a bug to
| separate judges from investigators. If the judge is in charge
| of the investigation, who's going to stop the judge from
| issuing unreasonable search warrants?
| [deleted]
| goatcode wrote:
| When you need laws to protect you from laws (or law enforcement),
| maybe there's a problem somewhere deeper down. It comes back to a
| principle I roughed out and live by when thinking about rules: if
| it's out of the box hard to enforce, it likely isn't justifiable
| as a rule (I'm not speaking about the laws around controlling
| police surveillance, but rather the laws the police are trying to
| enforce that lead them to using invasive surveillance).
| ncmncm wrote:
| _Especially_ with a law.
|
| The police generally consider laws to be for little people. In
| the US, any law that is supposed to apply to police has to not
| depend on the District Attorney ever filing charges, because they
| won't, except for certain high-visibility murders, and usually
| not even then.
|
| Something that has worked sometimes is a state or federal law
| affecting city police. The law should have provisions to allow
| citizens to initiate enforcement, and, for egregious offenses,
| provisions to restrict the convicted officer from working in
| other police departments.
|
| Too often, departments appear to respond to public pressure by
| firing the officer. But that actually achieves very little; the
| officer just goes to work for another city, with a fresh, clean
| record. There are a _lot_ of cities.
|
| It would be helpful to establish a national registry of police
| behavior, so that offenses at one department follow them to the
| next.
| bsenftner wrote:
| I just took a look, and "bad cop database" appears to be a new
| start up vector, littered with dubious websites.
| darksaints wrote:
| Allowing citizens to initiate enforcement sounds like a
| potentially good idea. Are you saying that citizens can
| prosecute police on behalf of the state? Where has it been
| tried before?
|
| I might have some reservations with this, but proving that cops
| committed crimes is actually extremely commonplace. It happens
| in criminal courtrooms on a daily basis, as the primary vector
| to get evidence thrown out against a defendant. When cops
| commit crimes while gathering evidence, those criminal actions
| taint the evidence.
|
| The problem is that nobody ever prosecutes the cops for the
| crime. The evidence gets thrown out, criminals walk free, and
| then nothing happens after that. It would be nice if the same
| defense attorney that proved the cop acted unlawfully could
| follow up by putting the cop in prison.
| djbebs wrote:
| To be perfectly honest I see no reason why all the
| prosecutorial powers vested exclusively on the state should
| be exclusive to the state.
|
| There should be nothing that the executive branch does in
| terms of investigation and prosecution, that the average
| citizen should be legally barred from doing.
|
| This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court,
| requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on.
|
| The only difference between an average citizen and the
| government employees doing these things should be that the
| government employes are being paid to do these things as a
| full time job.
| zepto wrote:
| That would result just in sovereign citizens doing an
| unlimited amount of paper terrorism.
| djbebs wrote:
| As opposed to the state?
|
| Simply add a cost to prosecutions that fail, with it
| going towards the winner.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| > with it going towards the winner.
|
| The cops will abuse the shit out of that. That gives them
| a monetary incentive to botch investigations when their
| buddies are involved.
| jdasdf wrote:
| Hence the:
|
| >There should be nothing that the executive branch does
| in terms of investigation and prosecution, that the
| average citizen should be legally barred from doing.
|
| >This includes prosecuting crimes in criminal court,
| requesting and enforcing warrants, and so on.
|
| >The only difference between an average citizen and the
| government employees doing these things should be that
| the government employes are being paid to do these things
| as a full time job.
|
| If the cops botch their investigations... Well there's
| nothing stopping anyone else from conducting their own.
| Might as well conduct one into the cops botching of the
| investigation too.
| anchpop wrote:
| they already have an incentive to botch investigations
| when their buddies are involved. Maybe this makes the
| incentive slightly greater but you shouldn't rely on cops
| to investigate their buddies anyway
| darksaints wrote:
| What makes you think someone prosecuting a police officer
| would rely on the police investigating the officer?
| zepto wrote:
| > As opposed to the state?
|
| Ok, so you consider the state to be equivalent to
| sovereign citizens?
|
| Also, how about investigations that never go to a
| prosecution? It's pretty simple to harass someone that
| way.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Some states (like Pennsylvania[1], for example) do have a
| process for "private criminal complaints". It's not without
| major drawbacks. The process can be (and has been) abused
| by people who simply want to make life difficult for
| others.
|
| Texas also recently took the concept you've described but
| implemented the inverse with SB-8[2] which allows citizens
| to do precisely what the government itself is legally
| _barred_ from doing.
|
| [1]https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/s
| ecur...
|
| [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Heartbeat_Act
| mindslight wrote:
| One of the problems is that there are different types of
| "illegal". The laws we're familiar with specify both that
| doing something is illegal, and also spell out a penalty for
| violation. But benerally the laws that set out government
| procedures don't specify any consequences for failing to
| follow the procedure.
|
| So the best that can happen after years of court time (with
| the government agents being paid the whole time), is a court
| judgement to stop doing something. There is no personal
| liability for the offending agents, no liquidated damages for
| the victims, no conspiracy charges for management's illegal
| policies, etc.
|
| In general, the state has a massive blindspot towards damages
| that it itself inflicts. As we can expect from any natural
| system, it has settled into creating ever more externalities.
| Cops have been abusing "you might beat the rap, but you can't
| beat the ride" for forever. Now that moral hazard is
| everywhere.
|
| In a just society, much of the state's activities would be
| viewed as just another actor on a level playing field, and
| would therefore be directly liable the damages it itself
| causes to innocent parties.
| darksaints wrote:
| I agree with you to some extent, but a lot of the corrupt
| behavior of police is actually illegal with explicit laws
| and sentencing. For example, "you might beat the rap, but
| you can't beat the ride". That is an arrest without
| probable cause, as if the officer thinks that the defendant
| can beat the rap, he doesn't have enough evidence to
| arrest. That is a chargeable offense known as Deprivation
| of Rights Under Color of Law, and it carries a max penalty
| of 10 years in prison.
|
| The biggest problem is our chickenshit prosecutors, not a
| lack of criminal laws that apply to the police. We could
| have more, certainly, but we don't even apply the ones we
| have.
| mindslight wrote:
| I agree with what you're saying too, and the problem
| needs to be attacked from every angle it can be.
|
| However, a completely different law kind of makes my
| point. Straight "kidnapping" and "false imprisonment"
| would be the appropriate charges. Yet the corrupt cop is
| still allowed to hide behind their nominal position,
| despite deliberately acting outside its authority.
|
| When I wrote my comment I was thinking of the TSA, which
| has done many things that were later slapped down by the
| court, but with no punishment for having violated the law
| for so long. Because despite being illegal, their actions
| were "policy" and thus apparently every crime they
| committed was okay.
|
| Regardless of public prosecutors, individuals can still
| sue civilly. Yet if you ask an attorney about doing so,
| they'll just laugh. If the problem were just corrupt
| prosecutors, then we would expect to still see plenty of
| civil suits. And even when the situation is serious
| enough to warrant a civil suit, it's still the city
| getting sued rather than the person who happens to be
| employed as an officer. The equivalent in the tech world
| would be getting caught cracking into other systems, and
| then being able to pass the responsibility off to your
| employer.
| [deleted]
| wccrawford wrote:
| OTOH, the laws that work against cops are the ones that
| invalidate the things they do on their day jobs. If they
| violate the law and a suspect goes free, that has actual
| consequences for them, mentally at least.
|
| Of course, they still have to get _caught_ , but it won't be
| the DA that has to do something about it, it's the defendant's
| lawyer who will do it.
| int0x2e wrote:
| I agree, but this only helps if they're actually going after
| someone they charge with something. If they are merely
| violating your rights but don't charge you, this would have
| little to no impact on police wrongdoing.
| TheSoftwareGuy wrote:
| >Of course, they still have to get caught, but it won't be
| the DA that has to do something about it, it's the
| defendant's lawyer who will do it.
|
| But unfortunately, this means that anybody who can't afford a
| good lawyer, will be an easy target for trampling on their
| rights
| ncmncm wrote:
| Actual consequences? So, the cop cracks your skull, but the
| judge lets you go, and the cop continues cracking skulls,
| maybe yours again.
|
| Your lawyer maybe sues the department for use of excessive
| force, and maybe gets a settlement from the taxpayers. Again,
| with exactly zero effect on the crooked cop.
|
| Maybe lawyers should be suing the police union, too.
| 14 wrote:
| Some people have been pushing for persona liability with
| the police. I think we could assume in this better world we
| are dreaming of where citizens can arrest an officer they
| also have personally liability.
| Gunax wrote:
| So it seems like this is something anyone can do. As in, I can go
| and buy or make a license plate scanner all I want. I can publish
| the data if I choose to. I can sell it or put in online for free.
|
| And of course a cop can do the same thing, they just cannot
| _automate_ it. If the city wanted to spend a gazillion dollars
| they could theoretically hire an army of people to manually
| record plate numbers and it would be within the law.
|
| It's information leak. The truth is we always took this sort of
| privacy for granted. The information was there forever--it was
| just too arduous to process. Nothing fundamental changed from
| 1980-2020, only the expense and practicality of it.
|
| I don't know what the solution is. I just think we are realizing
| that we never had privacy to start with, we were just shielded
| because it was impractical to process the data.
| gremlinsinc wrote:
| Pshht...we are the law... laws don't apply to us...laws of for
| ye, not for we... ~The Police (not the band).
| raxxorrax wrote:
| Yes, because we don't hold people accountable anymore. It didn't
| happen after Snowden revelation because it was politically
| inconvenient. That would be for media to put guilty parties under
| the spotlight. That has failed so bascically police could break
| any law they want, wired.com is certainly part of the problem
| here.
|
| You have to put strong legal deterants against it. Personal
| responsibility. That is actually pretty easy to implement if
| legislators really wanted to.
|
| I don't think police needs it, but crony authorities under
| executive control almost certainly do. Russians, Russians,
| Russians...
| kiba wrote:
| We don't hold people accountable? Do you really think the
| police are any better many decades earlier?
|
| For sure, the criminal justice system had gotten worse, with
| over-incarceration and criminalization, but I doubt that the
| police are your friends in the 1950s since much of the
| structure of police organizations hadn't changed that much.
| Clubber wrote:
| I didn't live in the 1950s but some things that certainly
| caused where we are today are qualified immunity and powerful
| unions that are excluded in GOP union busting efforts. States
| can opt to end qualified immunity for police in their
| jurisdiction, so it's up to citizens to put pressure on state
| governments to do so.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Accountability is exactly what's needed. Police unions, a
| culture of closing ranks - all this has to go and a top-down
| change driven by politicians/ministers needs to happen. Chauvin
| had 18 complaints lodged against him, presumably at least one
| of those was valid, and so accountability in the form of
| termination would've avoided what happened. Every private
| organization would have fired someone with this many customer
| complaints but the public sector systemically lacks
| accountability and this leads to terrible outcomes.
| Clubber wrote:
| >and a top-down change driven by politicians/ministers needs
| to happen.
|
| I'm not sure if that is politically possible. The police
| unions start complaining when politicians start to do
| something (see when they turned their back on DeBlasio in
| front of news cameras). I'm not sure if it's fixable without
| repercussions on the offending officers or the union rather
| than the taxpayers. There is zero or near zero repercussions
| of the officers, the chain of command or the union for
| malfeasance. Of course they are going to act how they act,
| they're humans. The worst part is the bad officers often
| corrupt the good ones, or make them quit, so over time
| there's just the bad.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Of course. When has it _ever_ worked? The only hope citizens have
| against abuse is neutralizing law enforcement technology. Control
| it by making it not work anymore. They 'll whine about it because
| it'll make their jobs harder but it doesn't matter.
| 2332430 wrote:
| nowhere in this article or the HN comments does it talk about
| funding of surveillance tech. if you want to control
| surveillance, then control the financing of it with a publicly
| accountable/transparent external oversight board whose members
| have as no conflict of interest with the source, path, or
| destination of the money
| throwoutway wrote:
| Make the law binding that both parties report it to an government
| accountability office, otherwise there would be steep financial
| costs to either party. When one reports and the other doesn't,
| then an investigation can occur.
|
| If it hits the police budget, you can expect the Chief to report
| it
| dane-pgp wrote:
| > It's not easy to control police - even with a law
|
| FTFY.
| ike77 wrote:
| But it's impossible without a law.
| DigitallyFidget wrote:
| For everyone living in America, the title may as well be "Did you
| know that oranges are orange?"
| darig wrote:
| I thought buying a gun was easy in the USA? Is it using a gun
| that people find "not easy"? It's the triggery thing in the
| middle... you just squeeze.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-28 23:02 UTC)