NYPD spent millions to contract with firm banned by Meta for fake profiles
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
You can’t give military style tools to poorly disciplined police forces without consequences. With the NSA or the Army, the problems are policy. With an org like NYPD, they don’t really have control of “the troops”, so who knows what’s happening.
This is correct. It's also the argument for ending qualified immunity and defunding the police.
These people may even benefit from over policing wrt kickbacks from private prisons. For example, Marco Rubio [0] is a top recipient of money from the private prison lobby, and he's run attack ads wrongfully saying that his political opponents want to abolish police, and he himself ran on a platform pushing for larger police budgets.
0 - https://www.opensecrets.org/industries./indus.php?ind=G7000
Perhaps defunding eventually reveals that we should abolish the police. Perhaps not.
In practice most of the common explanations I've seen mean "take a lot of the money from the police and give it to people more qualified to do things that police are filling in for" — so things like social work, for example.
This would also benefit the police, because they could focus on stopping and investigating actual crime.
A common example... if there's a homeless, mentally ill, or otherwise distressed person rambling on the sidewalk in front of your house for an hour... in the US many people would call the police. This is a terrible application of force and innocent people have been shot this way.
With properly staffed and funded social workers, someone could theoretically call them first, and then that person if needed could decide to escalate.
So really "defund the police" in a pithy slogan — "reduce funding to the police so it can be directed to more purpose-fit response teams" doesn't quite roll off the tongue the same way.
This same criticism is levied towards "black lives matter" — some take it as "only black lives matter" (often intentionally despite having it explained to them). So the response is "all lives matter" but the general intent is actually "black lives matter as well." Earlier "vote or die" was sometimes criticized in a warped way of "vote or we'll kill you"
There's this strange insistence that political slogans be perfect or all-encompassing, which seems rather disingenuous.
The last line for direct assistance is at the county social services level. Those organizations don’t have the capability to scale. You’ll also be challenged as each county and state doesn’t necessarily want improve outcomes.
I’m not saying drones are the answer, but it is not by any means a totally harmless event.
For those downvoting who don’t want to accept reality, below is an article from just a few days ago. It happens every year.
https://www.amny.com/new-york/brooklyn/spate-of-violence-sul...
I don't think anyone denies that there is often crime and violence in Flatbush, Brownsville, Crown Heights, and other neighborhoods around the parade route. In particular, it's a stretch to assume that everyone giving you downvotes "doesn't want to accept reality".
For my part, I wonder about the most effective way to reduce incidences of violence in our community. I know that these are some of the neighborhoods that have systematically been denied investment, perhaps that has a part to play? Also, these neighborhoods have experienced the brunt of overpolicing in our community for quite a long time. Somehow I don't think that the answer is more police. I don't think the answer is normalizing this appalling and illegal move.
What sorts of investments do you believe will directly and effectively curb violence and crime?
What does underinvestment have to do with J’Ouvert crime specifically?
For this to work we have to start by taking a sober look at the history of the concentration of power under capitalism, and how the use of force by the police has repeatedly and systematically kept the masses under control.
We have to analyze the true root causes of crime, and work to eliminate those forces. It is not only immorral, but simply impractical, to make any attempt to address broad social unrest solely at the point where symptoms arise.
People like you, the political climate you create, and the policies you vote for, are largely why our cities are devolving.
> our cities are devolving.
Turn off fox news and visit any of them and you'll see that American cities today are experiencing a rennaissance.
If you're actually interested and not just asking someone to elaborate on a complex problem over a HackerNews comment. An equally uncharitable opponent could ask you to prove that heavy policing (or at least the NYPD) has played a significant role in reducing crime.
My city, which is not exemplary by any means, after a fuckton of political backlash about the "policing" that happens at protests and parades switched to having a small group of unarmed cops specially trained in deescalation (which is mostly marketing but eh, sure) and comprised of almost entirely minorities, women, and older folks. They're not at all shy about this unit being visibly nonthreatening and they just walk with the people, sometimes joining them. We haven't had any "riots" ever since. It's allllllmost like the police had been instigating them, funny that.
That's their job. "Preventing harm" is acting _before_ crime happens. It's politicians and citizens job to prevent harm.
The one thing that police consistently and effectively do is themselves act as a criminal organization outside the law. They cause destruction and mayhem regularly on very flimsy premises and see little to no oversight for it.
At least ideally. It doesn't always work that way but it's a misnomer to blame the police for a neighborhood being unsafe and you're going to be disappointed if you expect them to.
I think it would be great to set up competition to Police forces: Cities should create and staff an unarmed "Helper Force" who gets deployed to non-emergencies, to help people in distress, investigate "Karen's" complaints of this and that, to defuse mental health episodes (maybe bring a social worker), incidents involving children, rescuing cats out of trees, and so on. Carry on for a year, and then have both the Helper force and the Police force summarize in writing how they benefitted the community over then last 12 months, and have them fight for funding on the basis of that report.
I think taxpayers would decide that they'd rather have the helpers.
" Values
In partnership with the community, we pledge to:
Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
Fight crime, both by preventing it and aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility."
It occurs to me that the concept of fighting crime is as much of a misnomer as the war on drugs, providing the wrong primer for the mind. One cannot fight a concept or object. I think it's important to retire the phrase. They see everything they do as fighting, they're trained to see threats, and so threats they will see regardless. (Just the wrong ones)
And to add: shooting a guy in an abuse of force during a traffic stop on an empty highway leaves no witnesses. A crowd will have a hundred eyewitnesses and dozens of phones recording.
People seem to think social media is akin to private communications where it's more akin to the public square. Making your IG/FB/whatever profile private doesn't change that.
In NYC for example, there's been a large uptick in teen shootings, many adjacent to schools, and a lot of it involves the idiots posting on social media before & after. One tool could be simply scraping social media for these postings. Another alternate, pre-internet tool was stop&frisk.
While you have a constitutional right to not be searched without consent/probably cause, you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence. What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law.
Putting out an IG post of yourself with illegal guns or inciting a shooting is no more private than printing out posters of the same and putting them up around the neighborhood.
Actually, in the U.S., you literally have that specific constitutional right.
The First Amendment protects "spouting off in the public square without consequence" via the Freedoms of Assembly (the right to gather), Speech (say what you like without consequence), Religion (believe what you like), and the right to petition the government.
Loud complaining or even vague and non-specific threats (such as "I'll make you pay for this!") are actually protected by the First Amendment.
There are very rare and limited exceptions, such as "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes, but "spouting off" is not, and must never be, a crime.
By my reading, it wasn’t OP who did this conflating.
"spouting off..used against you in a court of law"
But, even if the OP didn't intend for these two to be tied together in this way, then a very strong constitutional right still exists for spouting off, so whether conflation occurred or not is moot.
like I can say what I want, but if I say "I DID CRIMES" then guess what.. that could be used as evidence that I DID CRIMES
“Spouting off” is an idiom that can also mean “speaking without a filter” and that’s what OP meant in this case.
If someone tells you something in private in a public square in a way that nobody else in the public square can hear it, like lowering the volume of their voice so nobody else can hear, then it is possible to discuss in private in a public setting. There is no obligation to immediately share that private information with the entire public square just because the public square was used. This isn't some FOSS with a licensing agreement that says it must be made public.
You can use the features of a social platform to share with a chosen group of people while not allowing the entirety of the platform access. That's what private means. Not respecting that for sake of "it's a public platform" is just that person being a dick. Whether that's you holding this opinion or a scrapper justifying their manner if not respecting the poster's intent, it's all people with utter lack of respect. It's an AB conversation, and you're trying to be C. We've already indicated you're not the intended audience by setting to private. You doing everything you can to get around that is, again, you being a dick
Having public conversations and having cops insert themselves is.. actually really well established case law. Yes the cops can listen in when you have no expectation of privacy.
We don't want cops having and abusing backdoors but "playing the game" is perfectly legit. The cops do not owe you some sense of playing gently.
I'm not sure this is the sentence you meant. Of course anybody can listen in when you have no expectation of privacy. Without a court ordered search warrant, they can't listen in when you do have expectation of privacy.
Facebook is not private, neither is Twitter, especially not the profiles on Facebook.
You can have whatever wishes you want, but if you are behaving inconsistently with the truth, you're going to spend a lot of time being wrong and having your wishes disobeyed.
If a cop were to gain entry, or have a paid informant gain entry, whether by paying a cover, or bluffing association with a regular, that seems well within the law.
This is not someones house, or your bedroom, or the cops picking a lock & busting down a door. Social media is just an online "third place". It is not work, it is not your home, it is not private.. it is public square, even if you mark yourself "private" and only accept 200 followers instead of 300.
Just like posting things on your social media profile and 1000s of people see it instead of 100s of people you intended.
Another offline analogy would be - talking on your cellphone, you have the right to be free of warrantless wiretap.
However, if you sit down in a bar that you thought "was cool" and take a phone call, but the bar happens to have accidentally let a cop or "narc" in .. and they overheard your end of the phone call because you talk too loud, then what they testify hearing is totally admissible in court, and you are an idiot.
Then you come back with: "but you speak in a way that more people hear you than intended.."
You just changed what I specifically said so it would fit your narrative. Yes, you can be in a bar and think you're talking quietly, but the 3 pints and 2 shots you've consumed means that you're still yelling, just means you're a drunken fool. If you're in a restaurant or some other public setting while sober, you can actually talk to someone without the rest of the public hearing.
It's not only unethical and illegal, it is easily proven to be both. Law enforcement in the United States has, as its ultimate authority, a foundational legal document known as the Constitution. This document makes it very clear that it is illegal to search someone's (not even citizen, mind you, this applies to all humans) person, papers, or effects without a warrant.
The only reason to "scrape social media" is when you're doing it without a warrant. If you have a warrant, it becomes quite easy to request that data directly from Facebook.
> People seem to think social media is akin to private communications where it's more akin to the public square.
In any other argument, I would agree that it is a "public square". But the police specifically aren't permitted into this public square when acting as police officers. It is unethical and illegal.
> While you have a constitutional right to not be searched without consent/probably cause,
No, not even those things are sufficient. You have a right to not be searched without a properly issued search warrant.
> you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence.
In fact, you do actually have this right.
> Putting out an IG post of yourself with illegal guns
You cannot post on IG with "illegal guns". The only thing IG allows you to post are pixels in raster images. Photoshopping yourself holding the BFG-9000 isn't a crime, and it's not even "probable cause".
Do you have a citation for this that doesn't just parrot an NYPD source?
The NYC government has traditionally treated their police force as its own personal millitary and intelligence service, and neighboring states as hostile foreign enemies.
Have police across the country NOT been doing this for decades now?
Though talking about the LAPD instead of NYPD, this joke has been going around since the early 1990's:
The LAPD, the FBI, & the CIA are all trying to prove that they are the best at apprehending criminals.
The President decides to give them a test. He releases a rabbit into a forest and each of them has to catch it.
The CIA goes in. They place animal informants throughout the forest. They question all plant and mineral witnesses. After three months of extensive investigations they conclude that rabbits do not exist.
The FBI goes in. After two weeks with no leads they burn the forest, killing everything in it, including the rabbit and they make no apologies. The rabbit had it coming.
The LAPD goes in. They come out two hours later with a badly beaten bear. The bear is yelling, "Okay, okay, I'm a rabbit, I'm a rabbit!"
I guess NYPD's way around people that don't make their profiles fully public.
It would be interesting if Facebook is willing to punish/ban/etc not just the companies directly doing this, but their clients as well.
I don't accept a friend request unless I actually know the person. Do people randomly accept these requests knowing nothing about the other person than what is on their profile?
Yes, most people don't have a million friends on social media and will take what they can get, and the age-old honeypot tactic will never not work. If an attractive person shows interest in someone, they'll probably take it.
It isn't just the NYPD that does this, it's advertisers, data mining companies, financial institutions, employers, nation-states, ex's, stalkers, etc.
It's cheap and easy to do, so why wouldn't organizations mine that data that have the resources to do so?
The best thing you can do is to delete your profiles on these services.
I urge a visit to the Stasi museum in Berlin.
I don't want to defund the police; I do want them to behave like they are part of the neighborhood and not its enforcers.
EDIT: Slashing funding ≠ defunding. It's a terrible, terrible argument that makes no sense, alienates people who'd otherwise support a more reasonable approach, and perfectly embodies the 'all or nothing' style of modern day performance politics.
The only way this can be achieved is through defunding the police. Take away all of their military arsenal budget, cyber spy budget, money for pensions...
The good that money could do the communities it's currently actively harming is almost unfathomable.
Bureaucracies, if left unmanaged as they are today, will always find ways to increase their own budget or resource. It's as true with police departments as it is with... HR departments, or the Catholic Church, or the gun lobby, or unions, or congress, or Google.
The way to manage unchecked behavior is through structures and leadership that aligns incentives to policy. We do it all the time in plenty of other areas of society.
This is why you put pressure in the opposite direction by taking away funding from these bloated and toxic organizations. In a functioning democracy the size of the budget shouldn't be dictated by the organizations themselves, but by the voters.
I think "defund the police" is the perfect message as it cuts straight to the heart of the matter and gives people something they can support that will directly make a difference and be difficult to work around via corruption. Police budgets are massively bloated, we should start slashing and reinvesting into social programs and public infrastructure.
It's a terrible, nonsensical 'branded comment' that makes no sense, alienates people who'd otherwise support a more reasonable approach, and perfectly embodies the 'all or nothing' style of modern day performance politics.
I actually think "defunding" is the perfect way to describe slashing funding. We should start defunding/slashing now because the budgets are huge. It may asymptotically approach zero, but we need to reverse the trend.
"Defund the police" correctly highlights the actual issue, which is why people get so upset about it. The "people who'd otherwise support a more reasonable approach" do not and have never supported a more reasonable approach. They like the police, but can't come out and say it directly so instead they deflect to "hey! I can't support defunding the police because I don't like the slogan".
"The purpose of a system is what it does." The purpose of police is to maintain current structures of inequality, and to divert, undermine, and oppose mass movements that could lead to a radical upheaval of those structures.
It is effective at that! Its incentives are already aligned with the forces that have the most influence and mutual benefit with them. It is working as intended.
This is one of my favorite modern conspiracy theories. Shea and Wilson did it better back in '75 if you ask me.
People have been saying this for decades and decades. It doesn't work. How long does it have to not work before you accept that we need another strategy?
"Abolish the police" is a different, and I suspect much smaller, movement.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/eng... - " to stop providing money for something, especially something official"
which is the same as:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/ame... - "to officially end a law, a system, or an institution"
You can see where if you and I are having this conversation, probably there's a lot of other people like you and I who are talking past each other because the word is being either incorrectly deployed by proponents – or the proponents genuinely want to eliminate police departments.
So, if someone is defrauding you, you have the right to self defense (and also Equal Protection of your Equal Rights).
If interested, this is Meta’s newsroom piece of legal action against Voyager Labs for scraping user data:
https://about.fb.com/news/2023/01/leading-the-fight-against-...
"Documents obtained by ...shared with the Guardian"
"Internal documents [...] obtained and shared with the Guardian in 2021"
The only external item I found was NYPD "Social Network Analysis Tools: Impact And Use Policy" from April 2021 which does state how they collect and use social media data.
Similarly described & linked LAPD behavior also lacks evidence.
Anyone have links to these documents?
(I do not want to do this. Why do I have to do the work of investigative journalist? I just want to be able to trust them; alas trust is built over time and broken in seconds. [insert lamenting grumbling])
edit: documents can be redacted.
Other reporters will probably end up getting access to these documents and should be able to confirm the claims, presumably.
I do understand why not all spurce material can be published, but that source material is usually strictly vetted before publication. And that is were the brand of newspapers comes in.
If they aren't willing to publish the files (though many, many sensitive documents have been published while protecting the source!) than they can use a second or third news source to validate the files. This happened with the original panama papers before many of them were publically published - 4-5 papers all vetted them in chunks.
"Trust me bro" doesn't cut it, especially not for The Guardian.
I rather the see the problem you mention with all the named ones, read pundits and people being interviewed on record...
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/J9...
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/J9...