Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Social Networks

LAPD Officers Told To Collect Social Media Data on Every Civilian They Stop (theguardian.com) 195

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The Los Angeles police department (LAPD) has directed its officers to collect the social media information of every civilian they interview, including individuals who are not arrested or accused of a crime, according to records shared with the Guardian. From a report: Copies of the "field interview cards" that police complete when they question civilians reveal that LAPD officers are instructed to record a civilian's Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media accounts, alongside basic biographical information. An internal memo further shows that the police chief, Michel Moore, told employees that it was critical to collect the data for use in "investigations, arrests, and prosecutions," and warned that supervisors would review cards to ensure they were complete.

The documents, which were obtained by the not-for-profit organization the Brennan Center for Justice, have raised concerns about civil liberties and the potential for mass surveillance of civilians without justification. "There are real dangers about police having all of this social media identifying information at their fingertips," said Rachel Levinson-Waldman, a deputy director at the Brennan Center, noting that the information was probably stored in a database that could be used for a wide range of purposes. The Brennan Center conducted a review of 40 other police agencies in the US and was unable to find another department that required social media collection on interview cards (though many have not publicly disclosed copies of the cards). The organization also obtained records about the LAPD's social media surveillance technologies, which have raised questions about the monitoring of activist groups including Black Lives Matter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LAPD Officers Told To Collect Social Media Data on Every Civilian They Stop More

LAPD Officers Told To Collect Social Media Data on Every Civilian They Stop

Comments Filter:

  • No anal probes yet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:28PM (#61776505)

    I guess it's a good idea to maintain multiple identities on multiple social media platforms, if you're into that kind of thing. One "safe" identity, and one that you actually use...

    Now if the police could just plant cameras on every spare surface to monitor everything that everyone does.

    Freedom or Security. Security or Freedom.

    • We have security, for the government. Citizens are criminals and suspects.

      • Social media... and social security number (Score:5, Informative)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:59PM (#61776661) Homepage

        Buried in later in the article [theguardian.com]:

          "The copies of the cards obtained by the Brennan Center also revealed that police are instructed to ask civilians for their social security numbers and are advised to tell interviewees that “it must be provided” under federal law."

        This is a lie. It is not true that social security number "must be provided" if the police ask.

        • If you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. If you are not arrested, then you don't? Does not compute.

          • Re:Social media... and social security number (Score:5, Informative)

            by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @03:18PM (#61776741)
            This is not true. If you're arrested, you definitely keep your mouth shut, including your name. If you're not arrested, it depends on which state you live in and if you're being detained or not. See this [flexyourrights.org].

          • Re:Social media... and social security number (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @05:11PM (#61777127)

            If you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent. If you are not arrested, then you don't? Does not compute.

            Nope. Once you're arrested you are legally obligated to provide your identity if it's asked of you. Prior to arrest, you may be legally obligated to provide your identity when it's asked of you, depending on the circumstances and location.

            Much of your confusion seems to stem from your apparently mistaken belief that the right to remain silent is a universal right that applies to its fullest possible extent, protecting you from even having to identify yourself. It isn't and doesn't. Miranda rights, of which the right to remain silent is one, are limited in nature and have a number of exceptions [wikipedia.org], among which booking questions—such as your name, residence, and date of birth—are one of those exceptions.

            Things are a bit better before you get arrested, of course. Assuming you haven't been detained in a lawful Terry stop [wikipedia.org], you more or less have no obligation to identify yourself unless you're driving a car or flying in a plane. If you have been detained, then the law varies from state to state, with about half the states having "stop and identify" statutes that compel their citizens to identify themselves when asked by an officer during a lawful Terry stop, with the constitutionality of those laws being upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004's Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada [wikipedia.org].

        • "The copies of the cards obtained by the Brennan Center also revealed that police are instructed to ask civilians for their social security numbers and are advised to tell interviewees that âoeit must be providedâ under federal law."

          "I don't remember". This would be absolutely true for my wife.

          But why do they ask? The police must have databases that they could use to look up this information -- perhaps they know that they don't have the right to use the database in that way, but if the person "vo

        • cops are legally allowed to lie.

          that's why I will never befriend a cop. you can't trust them.

          and if they ever pulled this social media bullshit on me, I'd sue them to kingdom come. I'd spend my savings to make them regret it.

          dont fuck with people who have money. rule # 1 for pigs. people with money wont put up with bullshit and it may be a job-limited move by the piggies.

          oh, and fuck LA. socal can drop off the earth. no different than the deep south in their backwards attitudes.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by vux984 ( 928602 )

            "cops are legally allowed to lie. that's why I will never befriend a cop. you can't trust them"

            Did you know that in addition to cops, pretty everyone else in your life is also legally allowed to lie to you.

            I guess that doesn't leave you a lot of friends.

        • Re:Social media... and social security number (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @07:09PM (#61777415)

          This is a lie. It is not true that social security number "must be provided" if the police ask.

          One of the consequences of allowing the police to lie to citizens about the law: It gets abused a lot. Time to forbid them to do it and punish them severely if they do.

      • for the ruling aristocracy. They're not the same thing, as Derek Chauvin found out.

        Steal a bit of mail as a post man and you'll do 5 years. Steal trillions and crash the global economy? As long as you don't take anything from your peers you're A-Ok.

        The solution is more democracy (do away with the Senate, Ranked Choice voting to kill FPTP, universal vote by mail, etc, etc) but it's tough to do that when it goes against the interests of people with money, and when folks refuse to think of money as pow
    • More than once police officers have arrested someone and drag them to a hospital where they've talked a doctor and nurses into doing pretty ghastly things to prove the person is either on drugs or selling drugs. You don't really hear about it outside of a few left-wing rags and occasionally I mention on fark.com. the cops Target poor people who can't afford attorneys in most cases. It's easy to get them to plea bargain and not raise a fuss over the mistreatment.

  • How would that even work (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:29PM (#61776507)

    How is an officer supposed to verify someone has no social media if they say they don't have any accounts?

    Or what if you simply give a bogus account, how can they say for sure if that is you or not?

    Are officers going to be authorized to search your phone? Because it sure sounds like that is the direction things are headed.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by darkain ( 749283 )

      Thank Facebook for having a "Real Name" policy on their web site, and EXACTLY why I'll never use FB.

    • Or what if you simply give a bogus account, how can they say for sure if that is you or not?

      Good job criminal mastermind! You've just now committed the crime of lying to the police, which they can easily verify on the side of the road by double-checking the internet.

      It's better to just tell the truth:

      "This is private information. You can ask, but I'm not going to give it to you. Am I free to go?" And if they keep on asking, keep on repeating the same thing over and over again. Be a broken record if you have to.

      • Unless you have a common name ... how many "John Smiths" from a given city are there on FB? Make your profile pic a cute furry cat.

        • The police officer could check your feed. He could check for pictures of you in there. He could ask you questions about your most recent post.

          My point is. There is absolutely zero upside to providing that kind of private information to a police officer, even if you lie. If you don't provide that information, then the police officer is less likely to needle you for more information.

    • You have a right to remain silent. Use it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:48PM (#61776593)

      I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

      You do not have to answer any questions. Do not be a jerk about it. Recognize that the officer is simply doing what he/she was asked to do and that you'd prefer not to make their life any more difficult than it already is.

      General: https://www.aclu.org/know-your... [aclu.org]
      LA-specific: https://www.aclusocal.org/en/k... [aclusocal.org]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        When the police are being unreasonably intrusive, I have no objections to making their job more difficult. But I do have objections to making my life more difficult. Avoiding giving any information not legally required is the safer and better choice.

      • You do not have to answer any questions.

        Yeah, I'm thinking this is going to result in a lot of citizens becoming better trained in, "I'm not going to answer any questions without a lawyer."

    • What person in the entire world can give details of their Facebook account when asked? I don't have the URL memorized. If there are 193 different Bob Jones on Facebook then how do they distinguish each other, and then accurately tell the police how to find the right account? The aswer is, they can't. Now, if they have a phone with that info (and maybe it's a surprise but not everyone has facebook on their phone) they are not required to open it and share the link with anyone without a court order.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      You want my twitter handle? What's that? Officer, are you high? Or are you coming on to me? You're not making any sense.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      The solution to this is to implement wetware-based phone unlocking, so that they have to somehow compel you to actively *want* to unlock the phone for them before they can search it. Ideally, such facilities would even be able to detect when you were trying to unlock the device under duress, and simply refuse to unlock in such circumstances, making it impractical for them to even bother to try.

  • If you cared about security in the first place you obfuscate what little you use.

  • Good luck I don't have any (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slaker ( 53818 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:32PM (#61776523)

    1. How? Are they going to force people to unlock their phone?
    2. What counts as a social network? A hook up app? A student's Blackboard account?
    3. Is someone without any recognizable social media more or less subject to additional scrutiny?
    4. Should my electronics then be considered a part of my legal identification?
    5. What protection do I as a citizen have if a cop decides to copy some data off my device?
    6. Why do they need to know these things.

    • 7. How is this not a violation of the fourth amendment?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        7. How is this not a violation of the fourth amendment?

        I imagine their defense would be that they're merely requesting this information, not "requiring" you to give it. Never mind the fact that they're going to take you to the station if you don't answer the questions they ask.

        • 7. How is this not a violation of the fourth amendment?

          I imagine their defense would be that they're merely requesting this information, not "requiring" you to give it. Never mind the fact that they're going to take you to the station if you don't answer the questions they ask.

          OK, let's play that game for a minute. You claim they're merely "requesting" information, but also claim they're going to haul you down to the station if you refuse to provide it? Ah, on what legal grounds? What exactly is the charge? Non-Obstruction of Unjustified Justice? Seriously, please provide your best IANAL guesstimate as to the charge they would legally arrest and detain you with, and how quickly a decent lawyer would shred that stupid shit to pieces.

          Hell, even a public defender would walk in

          • OK, let's play that game for a minute. You claim they're merely "requesting" information, but also claim they're going to haul you down to the station if you refuse to provide it? Ah, on what legal grounds? What exactly is the charge? Non-Obstruction of Unjustified Justice?

            The police have sown, time and time again, that they just don't care. Yes, your lawyer could shred their grounds and you could probably get some money for violation of your rights, but the police don't care. The settlement doesn't come fr

            • OK, let's play that game for a minute. You claim they're merely "requesting" information, but also claim they're going to haul you down to the station if you refuse to provide it? Ah, on what legal grounds? What exactly is the charge? Non-Obstruction of Unjustified Justice?

              The police have sown, time and time again, that they just don't care. Yes, your lawyer could shred their grounds and you could probably get some money for violation of your rights, but the police don't care. The settlement doesn't come from the police budget and no one is going to be disciplined for it.

              I don't know if there has ever been a time in human history where the actions of police officers have been scrutinized more than now, resulting in a lot more bad cops being questioned, investigated, charged and punished for serious violations of the law.

              And when taxes go up by 20% in the county that becomes addicted to enforcing such stupidity resulting in an endless stream of lawsuits, rest assured there will be taxpayers who won't take kindly to that shit, and will vote to change it.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Whoever said pigs care if they "legally" detain you? They'll just call it "disorderly conduct" and have their partner lie on the report with them.

              Sorry, but I fail to see how a cop could even try and use "disorderly conduct" against you for failing to provide an answer to a voluntary series of questions about social media. Disorderly means exactly that; acting in a manner that disturbs others, or disturbs the peace. Failing to provide an answer to a question, is far from "disorderly".

              It's two cops' words against yours...and cops would never lie, right? /s

              Over the last 3-5 years, I'd say we've seen everyone from the general public to judges question that idiotic assumption, with plenty of bad cops providing evidence to

        • you can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride.

          (law 'enforcement' in the US is a bad joke. best to just avoid the pigs and stay alive longer)

          but dont argue with them. they are C students and ALL of them have authority complexes. pure alpha males. not possible to reason with.

          if they take you downtown, you must go. the place to fight is in court, not in the pigpen.

    • > 2. What counts as a social network? A hook up app?

      Yes, the pigs are probably fishing for Grindr contacts.

      > 1. How?

      By having 13 years of compulsory education and never "having time for" teaching people how to defend their civil rights. The truth is the public schools are the institutionalized racism in the society.

      Tell all the teens you know about the FlexYourRights [youtube.com] videos.

    • Re. the first point, IIRC there already is some jurisprudence in several countries (not sure about the USA) that holds that making you enter the PIN to your phone constitutes being forced to cooperate (which is illegal), whereas forcing your finger on the scanner or holding the phone up to your face to unlock it does not. Some phones have a shortcut to disable biometric auth, so if you get pulled over, it’s worth knowing and using it.

    • If you'd read the fucking article you'd know its on the forms for cops to ask people.

  • Easy (Score:2)

    by rpnx ( 8338853 )
    "What's your facebook username?" "Pursuant to the 5th Amendment, I decline to provide that information."

    • That's the weird one the list: Facebook. How in the world would I know my Facebook username? You don't enter a username on Facebook.

      • That's the weird one the list: Facebook. How in the world would I know my Facebook username? You don't enter a username on Facebook.

        OK, perhaps we stop splitting cunt hairs here. Your email address or phone number, is specifically utilized as a username on Facebook. Format is quite irrelevant when the purpose of that input box is clear.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Hey, how did you know my Facebook username?

    • You could probably get away with "I don't know. My PC logs me in automatically..."

  • Do not answer police questions. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thrasher thetic ( 4566717 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:35PM (#61776535)
    Just don't do it. Perform the bare minimum interaction necessary to exit the encounter. Nothing you say will ever help.
    • This.

      FI's are voluntary. You are under no obligation to speak to the police.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ThurstonMoore ( 605470 )

      People are stupid. Every time I go to Walmart I see people submitting to searches by Walmart employees. I just say no thank you and keep walking or tell them they're free to dig in my front pants pocket if they would like to see the receipt.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        They are also free to blacklist you from their store. You're on private property, a little respect for other's very minor attempts to reduce theft in their store doesn't make people stupid.

        You do you man, if that's the hill you choose to die on more power to you. The rest of us have better things to do than cause pointless aggravation.

        • They are also free to blacklist you from their store. You're on private property, a little respect for other's very minor attempts to reduce theft in their store doesn't make people stupid.

          You do you man, if that's the hill you choose to die on more power to you. The rest of us have better things to do than cause pointless aggravation.

          So, stopping and frisking a paying customer, isn't considered pointless aggravation to you, and of course assuming that every customer is a thief to justify such a policy conveys the utmost respect towards customers, right?

          I hope you enjoy that Orwellian society YOU are welcoming. The parent had a valid point. You don't, and this isn't a hill we're talking about here. It's a slope that's far more slippery than you assume. Wake up.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          They are also free to blacklist you from their store. You're on private property, a little respect for other's very minor attempts to reduce theft in their store doesn't make people stupid.

          You do you man, if that's the hill you choose to die on more power to you. The rest of us have better things to do than cause pointless aggravation.

          It is actually not that simple. They have to have a good reason which would be at the very least a violation of their ToS. And those ToS need to be legal for that. And they have no right to even know your identity (pretty much required to ban you) unless you have done something serious and they can call the police on you.

          Shops open to the general public can not simply blacklist anybody. That is a myth. Stop pushing that lie.

          • Shops open to the general public can not simply blacklist anybody. That is a myth. Stop pushing that lie.

            Sure they can. No lie. They can't discriminate against a protected class. But they can ask a rude asshole to gtfo. Being a dipshit is not a protected class, contrary to some group's opinions.

            "We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone" is a thing, albeit with a few pitfalls if one is not careful.

        • Ha ha ha, yeah theoretically they could blacklist me and ban me from the store, but it's nearly impossible to do in real life. They're not going to post my pic in the store and have the employees memorize it.

          That plus the employee turnover and their general "don't give a shit" attitude means that you can't really be banned in any meaningful way.

          As for them preventing theft, I'm all for it. But that DOES NOT mean they can paw through my stuff whenever they like, no no no.

      • On my way out after buying a picnic sized lunch box, I once had a walmart employee tell me "We have cameras and we can look you up and see if you put anything in that box you're carrying." My response was "Go ahead, you'll see that I didn't. Biiiee." Next time she saw me, I told her I had a 4th amendment right, and she can call the cops to accuse me and I would happily wait for them to check my receipt outside the store. Third time she saw me, she didn't even acknowledge my presence.

  • say do you have an warrant?

  • "No" is a complete sentence.

    So is "I plead the Fifth."

    So is "Call my lawyer."

    Law requires people to identify themselves to a piggie (name/address/ID info), not to divulge information like social media.

    • Don't forget... Identifying yourself is merely providing a name in most areas of the US. You are not required to provide an ID unless interacting with something that requires proof... such as public transport - you might be required to have at least a walking ID - or Driving a car where you are required to have a Driver's License, driving a Limo - where you are required to have an upgraded license, or flying a plane, or carrying a concealed firearm... etc. Most areas do not require you to provide ID while s

  • Where is security, governed through scrutiny?

  • And they ask for you social security number, saying it must be provided under federal law, even though no such law exists. It seems they're doing this as an end-run around asking people for their place of birth -- ie: immigration status. From TFA:

    The copies of the cards obtained by the Brennan Center also revealed that police are instructed to ask civilians for their social security numbers and are advised to tell interviewees that “it must be provided” under federal law. Kathleen Kim, a Loyola law professor and immigrants’ rights expert, who previously served on the LA police commission, said she was not aware of any law requiring individuals to disclose social security numbers to local police.

    And she said she was shocked to learn about the social security section on the cards, noting that it was “so antithetical to the department’s own policies” and clearly violated the spirit of sanctuary laws, which are supposed to prevent officers from asking civilians their immigration status. The LAPD had previously taken steps to ensure it was not requesting place of birth information to improve trust with undocumented communities, she said.

    Adding Los Angeles to my list of places to not live/visit -- right after Florida and Texas.

  • What gets you into trouble: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:56PM (#61776639) Homepage Journal

    Applying mandates like this selectively.

    But what would *really* gets you into *big* trouble is applying them *uniformly*.

    No good can come from a mandate this broad. People as a whole won't stand for it being done to everyone, and for practical purposes that's too burdensome. So you're left with applying them *selectively* and most of the easy ways of doing that are unconstitutional under the XIVth Amendment.

    The Social Security disclaimer on the interview card is particularly egregious. It requires that the police lie to everyone they question about federal law. Police are allowed to lie to suspects during questioning, but lying about what the law requires people to do crosses a line. You can't expect people to respect you as an officer of the law if you misrepresent that law.

  • I smell BS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @02:58PM (#61776655) Journal

    I suspect such info is considered voluntary and the officers are supposed to tell suspects it's voluntary. Just because there are slots for it on a form doesn't mean it's mandatory.

  • Since it's 1984, 1999 should be right around the corner. :P

  • How long before a law comes out compelling everyone to have one for "identification" purposes?
  • ... what do they do if you say that you don't have one?

  • Why am I not surprised (Score:3)

    by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2021 @05:38PM (#61777189)
    It looks like the LAPD is jealous of China's social credit system. Someone forgot to tell them that the phrase "Peoples Republic of California" is supposed to be a joke.
  • Are you supposed to give them the URLs? These social media apps don't even show URLs. Give them your usernames? Time to create some empty social media profiles with my name.
  • If you have a social media account under your own name, its easy to find with google anyway. If its not under your name, I don't see anything to suggest that you need to list all accounts - I'm sure I have some old ones that I haven't used for years and have forgotten about.

    Asking for passwords, or to be friended or something is a different matter but this isn't really an invasion of privacy, its an invasion of publicity .
  • to the police state! Another reason to AVOID California!

Slashdot Top Deals

"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite improvements." -- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors

Close