The Thin Blue Line: The First Time a Cop Lied To Me



MEDIA ROOTS – This article by David Noriega, published on TheNewInquiry, vividly diagrams the pressures inherent on a young college graduate when he goes to work for the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board, wherein he investigates citizens’ complaints against NYPD officers. Where other areas that have the means use attorneys for the important task of holding peace officers accountable to citizens, the overextended CCRB provided steady employment for recent grads like Mr. Noriega, as long as they could accomplish the task of minimizing paperwork and consequences for the NYPD.

Younger, more inexperienced workers were more likely to follow orders and be amenable to a culture that valued exoneration of officers, discounting citizen grievances, and not taking a stand on controversial issues like stop-and-frisk. The author expresses some guarded hope, and lists some recent, albeit limited, improvements to the CCRB’s function. This cautionary tale will give you a glimpse of what it feels like to be on the inside of a powerless bureaucratic machine whose ostensible task is keeping the NYPD from abusing its authority. 

Laurie Kirchner for Media Roots

*****

THENEWINQUIRY – I will always remember the first time a cop lied to me. Or rather, the first time that I knew beyond a doubt that a cop was lying to me, sitting right there in the interview room with a tape recorder in front of him.

It was early in my tenure as an investigator at the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board, the city agency established in 1993 to investigate allegations of misconduct against NYPD officers. The case was a fairly straightforward stop-and-frisk incident near the massive New York City Housing Authority complexes along Avenue D in Manhattan. The complainant, a man in his early 20s, alleged that a plainclothes cop had stopped, frisked, and searched him after he stepped out of a bodega. He’d given a guy a cigarette, and before he knew it, the cop came up from behind him, grabbed him by the coat, and after a quick scuffle, pushed him against a wall.

I’d already interviewed the cop’s unusually forthcoming partner, whose testimony matched the complainant’s. That’s how I knew the cop was making stuff up. Lots of stuff.

Continue reading The Thin Blue Line

*****

photo by Jean-Edouard BABIN under creative commons

MR Original – Wikileaks Trips Up Trapwire



MEDIA ROOTS – It may be a sign of a public awakening when news of government surveillance hits the front page of Gawker’s future and technology blog, io9. The scope of federal survellience was widened on August 10 when Wikileaks released documents that exposed the TrapWire system to the public. The security technology helps group private surveillance recordings into one larger network that may be monitored by the government.

It was top secret software that was designed by former CIA agents. Now TrapWire is trending on Twitter as more enlightening information has been surfacing. International news outlet, RT – America even ties the TrapWire information to the White House and its various three letter agencies, as well as intelligence gathering organizations across the globe.

While conspiracy theories are claimed and refuted, the discussion around TrapWire remains particularly relevant. Thomas Drake, the noted NSA surveillance whistleblower of yesteryear, tweeted the following last week: “#Trapwire not bogus. No liberty w/o privacy.Secret surveillance of people is tyranny. Universal wiretap & profile 4 all?”

What comes next?

According to the io9 article, the Electronic Frontier Foundation might have built a legal standing to prove that TrapWire is not only illegal, but in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. From the EFF:

“In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that Americans have constitutional protections against GPS surveillance by law enforcement, holding that GPS tracking is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.”

To date, there are no pending legal challenges to TrapWire. That is almost certain to change, as more information is uncovered and the general public begins to acknowledge that privacy isn’t merely for those who have something to hide.


Sean Reid is a guest contributor to Media Roots.

Photo provided by Flicker user SE17.

SF Cell Shutdown: Safety issue, or Hint of Orwell?

MEDIA ROOTS- Sometimes I forget that I am living in a police state, and then I hear about stories like this: last Thursday, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) shut off cellphone service at several stations in an attempt to stop a planned protest over another fatal shooting by BART police. It was spun as a preventative safety measure by BART and officials, but it’s a disturbing commentary on how de-valued privacy and civil disobedience have become in our society.

BART is technically private, but it has all the auspices of a public space. You can argue that private industry has the right to interfere with first amendment rights being exercised on their property, but when a public transit company works in collusion with the telecommunications industry and the government to shut down modes of communication, how can you call it anything but Orwellian? What is the difference between Mubarak’s regime cutting off the internet for Egyptians during the protests and BART officials cutting off the passengers’ freedom? Corporations are technically “people,” but how far are their rights allowed to infringe upon the rights and progress of a free society?

Abby

***

BREITBARTAn illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute?

The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials’ decision to cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city’s main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police.

Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency’s move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision.

“I’m just shocked that they didn’t think about the implications of this. We really don’t have the right to be this type of censor,” said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART’s board of directors. “In my opinion, we’ve let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that’s not fair.”

Similar questions of censorship have arisen in recent days as Britain’s government put the idea of curbing social media services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in riots.

Read more about SF Cell Shutdown: Safety issue, or Hint of Orwell?

Photo by Flickr user Aracio Olvarado