The analyst told her friend that the police could access what was thought of as private. That was the crime. Being honest about what the police can do.
The police also say that having the ability to breach privacy is key to keeping people safe but there is no mention of when info secretly scraped from the unsuspecting prevented other unsuspecting people from morbid circumstances.
This whole event looks like the cops are big mad they will now be asked for accountability on another method of investigation. Imagine having to answer for your actions!
The analyst told her friend that the police could access what was thought of as private. That was the crime. Being honest about what the police can do.
Do you suggest police analysts should be fully transparent all the time, as in "Hey bob, the cops know you are going to raid the bank tomorrow, better re-arrange"?
Allowing the police to make up the rules as they go and then justify them later is not the answer to a civilized society. That’s how you end up with a police state. We have privacy laws and basic human rights for a reason. If the cops want to circumvent them, then the laws change first. We are not a society that should accept shooting first and asking questions later.
One of the reasons the Brexiters - who are still in Government - openly stated for Leaving the EU was so that they could leave the European Convention Of Human Rights, since being a signatory of that Convention is a requirement of EU membership.
The British “elites” are very much not believers in the riff-raff having Rights that superceed their mechanisms for controlling the masses if there is an ultimate genuinelly independent enforcer of those Rights (such as the European Court of Human Rights) - the most favored control mechanisms in the UK have an appearence of fairness whilst being de facto designed for operating differently or being easy to subvert, so a trully independent Human Rights mechanism whose judges didn’t went to the same very expensive and very select private schools as the English power elites is borderline unnacceptable (clearly in the case of Brexiter leaders, absolutelly so) for said power elites.
PS: All this to say that in Britain the problem is a lot deeper than merelly the police, who to a large extent are just hired enforcers in a system designed to “keep people in their place”, a mindset probably derived from the horror of the British Elites at what happenned next door in France during the Revolution Française (the political British system is one of the ones in Europe whoch has change the least for over a century).
They should be open about how investigative tools work, and what the current privacy expectations are, yes. In the end they have to present their evidence in court, and that includes things like this.
Yes. The police, like any government agency, needs to state both the scope of its work and provide metrics for how taxpayers can expect their money spent. This expenditure should include how it achieve its goals and what progress should look like. Then let the people judge the methods are consistent with public expectations of accountability.
Police have repeatedly shown an incapability to behave, respect, or function as a person who has to be responsible for their actions. They cannot be allowed to operate without oversight.
The police, like any government agency, needs to state both the scope of its work and provide metrics for how taxpayers can expect their money spent.
That would be in the charter as set out by the UK parliament. It doesn't include the requirement that suspects be tipped off about ongoing investigations.
To be fair to the plod that’s not the only thing she’s being charged with.
She’s specifically been leaking information about ongoing investigations which for an LEO is a big no-no.
Mottram drove to Kay and Bennett’s house to warn them about the police file on Kay – which as we know, and she didn’t, was deliberately bogus.
If she’d just told people that EncroChat was insecure then she’d have plausible deniability, but she’s clearly pretty involved in trying to assist people in keeping clear of the law (which is pretty cut and dry in the eyes of the law - regardless of what you think of the morality of it all).
Mottram bought weed from a dealer whose phone number was saved in her mobile phone. She also told Bennett about a murder file she had seen on her boss’s desk, and took selfies with her work computer visible and showing an “official sensitive” document.
A few other dodgy bits here too, again, very much in breach of her terms of employment which, for LEA employees can get sticky pretty rapidly.
All of this is quite apart from whether you think the fuzz should have access to private citizens communications (which I should be clear I don’t). But she’s not just an innocent person who just told her mates that they shouldn’t use a specific service to discuss breaking the law.
Is there any shitheads on your block? At your job? Are you one simply because you can’t fix stupid? I would say no, is all.
The ending of qualified immunity, the removal of protection from liability, making cops pay penalties instead of taxpayers, full prosecution when cops are caught doing the sketch, body cams that are unable to be turned off and are monitored by third party… There are cops who wouldn’t be the slightest bit affected by any of it, because they aren’t shitheads.
I’ll go with most are bastards pretty readily though ;)
There are cops who wouldn’t be the slightest bit affected by any of it, because they aren’t shitheads.
‘good’ cops protect bad cops by not calling them out. Cops that call out other cops are immediately targeted, people have been killed for trying to expose their department’s corruption. This causes a form of artificial selection that ACTUAL good cops have very little time as cops, and the only ones that stick around are the ones that turn a blind eye to literal horrors.
As yous say, if we could magically Thanos snap away ONLY the bad actors, leaving behind the actual good and the pretend good cops, THEN SURE we’d solve the problem, and maybe we could get more actual good people to apply.
But while the corrupt, greedy racist pigs have power to silence the whistleblowers, there will be no meaningful change.
The real fear by the political elite is that if they actually do remove all the bad cops, 1) There won’t be enough cops left, and 2) Now they can’t use the cops to enact unethical actions on their behalf.
It’s nice that he owned up to it and self-reported, but this shows a huge lack of judgement on his part. Doing any sort of malfunction drill with a loaded magazine, in your house when you share walls with a neighbour, is incredibly stupid
Aww, did the cops get their feelings hurt because someone said something mean? The poor dears, I’m sure a nice cup of hot cocoa with marshmallows and a few civil rights violations will fix them right up
His attorney Sarah Schielke believes the problem stems from a police culture that incentivizes officers to make more and more DUI arrests. She says officers who make the most DUI arrests are honored, given better shifts and compete with other departments to see who can make the most DUI arrests.
it’s really not worth it… they have the license plate and can just go to their house later…
the driver is still a piece of shit for also endangering people’s lives (and the three year old)
Kid wants attention but isn’t getting it; Kid is trying to get the adults’ moods to match their own; Kid is experimenting with physics, weight and gravity; Kid mispprehended what would happen if the lamp fell.
I take serious issue with delivering tickets at home later. The fact that it’s your car is circumstantial. No way to prove you were driving.
You most likely know who was driving your car, and if it wasn’t you, you could identify who it was, but frankly, I don’t like it… Not for a traffic ticket where you’re presumed guilty and have to prove you don’t owe the state the fine… I don’t think it’s a great idea sending cops to a registered owners house in that context… Not with the current standards police are demonstrating.
Edit- don’t chase either… Minor speeding, taillight, ranva stop sign… Let it go ffs
I think his solution is to chase. Which is what they did and the results hurt people. My best guess is the rewards are better than the risks. I dunno. I’m just guessing
The premise is that a broken tail light doesn’t indicate a turn or a stop to other drivers, who should be paying attention anyway… It’s safety, public safety…
So to mitigate the risk of a collision because one of your three brake lights isn’t working, we gotta chase someone? Or in the case of going to their home, we’re gonna pay two cops an hours wage, reduce their ability to do anything else for anyone, and basically convict someone without any process whatsoever (unless they spend the time to contest it, and likely fail anyway just because cop says they did it) on circumstantial evidence?
Apply that to speeding… Apply it to rolling a stop sign… Apply it to 90%+ of the shit that gets ticketed…
The benefit to society for most traffic tickets is negligible at best. Let it go…
The benefit to society for most traffic tickets is negligible at best. Let it go…
This is an extremely naive view. While the cops enforcing the law are almost always corrupt and do it in a corrupt way
The “benefit is negligible” is a mistake. The fact is driving around without brake lights IS a problem, driving without a seatbelt IS a problem, speeding IS a problem. That is why these laws came about in the first place. The facts and statistics are very clear about the increased accidents.
You appear to be assuming that I’m suggesting citations be done away with entirely…
I’m suggesting that a citation doesn’t warrant a pursuit.
I’ll go a little further and say that a “no pursuit” policy isn’t appropriate either (and that sounds contradictory I’m sure, but if you publish it as a policy it becomes an incentive, not good), but a pursuit over a citation is negating, in a huge manner, the safety those citations provide…
Someone fleeing the police is a ridiculously more dangerous condition than an occasional citation getting skipped… how many people flee? 1%? I doubt it’s even that… The statistical deterrence isn’t affected by that, and arguably, the citation won’t have a statistical impact on that fringe group anyway. The reduction in accidents happens in the 99% that pull over and simply pay the fines.
In the UK, you would receive a letter with the details of the infraction. You can nominate someone else who was driving at the time but it defaults to the car’s registered owner.
And we have annual inspections (the MOT) or your insurance is invalid. You have to be taxed and insured or your car gets impounded.
Does the US not have annual inspections?
Quick edit: This is for things like speeding and other offences caught on camera. I doubt this would apply to a broken light as in the OP.
In the US inspections are controlled by each state. Some have yearly, some have basically none, and everything in between like only during change of ownership.
Same in Belgium and I assume most civilized countries. Either your car is stolen or it is not. If it is, you legally have to disclose that. If it is not, then “maybe I wasn’t the one driving but I’m not going to tell you ;) ;) ;)” is a bullshit excuse, and everyone knows it. You know it, the person you replied to knows it, the judge knows it.
I think there’s a whole-ass essay to be written on the Americans’ relationship to law that leads them to using the stupidest legal arguments like some kind of arcane ward… and actually succeeding.
Hot take: we make fun of sovereign citizens but “speed cameras are unenforceable if you don’t have a 4K picture of me at the wheel of what is unambiguously my car” is basically the same thought process.
with the current standards police are demonstrating, im not okay with them doing anything…
i meant more, “in a perfect world” kinda sense…
with parking tickets they can’t prov who drove either, so really the car gets the ticket…
the owner has to pay it to keep registration, though…
Its the owners car. Either they say who was responsible for that ticket or the owner is getting fined themselves.
And to be fair, these tickets are delivered by post. Only if you then didnt pay or show up to a hearing will you get into more serious trouble.
Assuming the courts work (much better than police either way), you get a fair process there. (of course, circumstances can be fabricated, but thats then up to the court, not much you can do really apart from forcing them to have video evidence in such easy things)
So when someone is evasive to police we should just go to their house later? It’s called probable cause and you don’t know if the people in the car are dangerous. I’m not a great supporter of the police but the hot takes in this thread are disappointingly dumb.
So if you were pulling someone over for a valid reason and they fled, you would just be like oh well I guess they got away? interesting mental gymnastics going on here, why do people let their blind hatred of a group subvert common sense?
you do know that what you suggested ironically is literally what happens in sane countries, right?
you try to ignore the police because of a broken tail light? they’ll just summon you to court, they have your plates. and you’ll be fined for fleeing the police and probably lose your driver’s license, at least temporarily and if it’s a temporary revocation you’ll definitely be required to attend further driver’s training at your own expense before you’re allowed to drive again.
you’re not home or pretend not to be? they’ll track you down and either deliver the summons directly or just arrest you.
that’s normal. that’s the normal thing to happen.
you know what’s not normal? Killing people because they don’t want to talk to you!
Although travelers are allowed to carry as much money as they want when flying within the United States, if police find cash and believe it’s tied to a criminal enterprise, the burden is on you to convince them otherwise, even if they don’t charge you with a crime.
Sounds like a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
“You are innocent until proven guilty, but you are not just carrying around $1 million or $10,000 in cash without some level of notification and legitimacy,” he replied. “You’ve got to be able to demonstrate some level of legitimacy.”
What the actual fuck? No, it’s on the police to prove wrongdoing. See the Fifth Amendment.
No, but see, they’re charging the money with a crime, not you! And because it’s not a human they’re charging, silly things like constitutional rights don’t apply!
The only thing more absurd than that argument is that a judge bought that argument.
1ft.io
Hot