COPWATCH
- Thread starter StillHustlin
- Start date
Google voice search records and keeps conversations people have around their phones – but the files can be deleted | The Independent
Just talking is enough to activate the recordings – but thankfully there's an easy way of hearing and deleting them
What it doesn't tell you is the data is stored by Google and since it is a private entity, there is no regulation on the storing of that data.
Just talking is enough to activate the recordings – but thankfully there's an easy way of hearing and deleting them
What it doesn't tell you is the data is stored by Google and since it is a private entity, there is no regulation on the storing of that data.
Judge rules NYPD needed a warrant before using cell-site simulator
A Brooklyn judge has ruled that because the New York Police Department (NYPD) used a cell-site simulator, also known by the brand name Stingray, to track down a murder suspect without a warrant, some evidence against the suspect will be thrown out. As the New York Times reports, the NYPD initially denied using such a device in this case, but later conceded that it had. Following the suspect's arrest, he was picked out of a lineup by another victim, and that's what is being tossed out.
"The failure to obtain a proper eavesdropping warrant here prejudiced the defendant since the most useful and needed information -- ie. his location -- was procured from the unlimited use of the cell site simulator," Justice Martin Murphy wrote in his ruling.
Law enforcement agencies have been bumping up against courts quite a bit when it comes to using Stingrays. In September, a Washington DC Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of a man who had been located by police with such a device. The court ruled that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Last year, a federal judge suppressed DEA evidence resulting from the use of a cell-site simulator.
Lots of different agencies across the US use cell-site simulators -- the ACLU has found that at least 72 agencies in 24 states and Washington DC use them. They're used by the FBI, ICE, the IRS as well as police officers, and the NYPD has said that it used them 1,016 times between 2008 and May 2015.
This ruling is the first to restrict the NYPD's use of cell-site simulators, which could have an impact on how the nation's largest police department utilizes them going forward. "This decision stands for the principle that, in the criminal justice context, the technology has to be reviewable in a fair and open way by both the courts and the defense," Jerome Greco, a staff attorney in the Legal Aid Society's Digital Forensics Unit, told the New York Times. Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the publication, "Unless we create legal limits on these technologies, and real oversight, we face the prospect of comprehensive police monitoring and tracking of private, lawful activity."
A Brooklyn judge has ruled that because the New York Police Department (NYPD) used a cell-site simulator, also known by the brand name Stingray, to track down a murder suspect without a warrant, some evidence against the suspect will be thrown out. As the New York Times reports, the NYPD initially denied using such a device in this case, but later conceded that it had. Following the suspect's arrest, he was picked out of a lineup by another victim, and that's what is being tossed out.
"The failure to obtain a proper eavesdropping warrant here prejudiced the defendant since the most useful and needed information -- ie. his location -- was procured from the unlimited use of the cell site simulator," Justice Martin Murphy wrote in his ruling.
Law enforcement agencies have been bumping up against courts quite a bit when it comes to using Stingrays. In September, a Washington DC Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of a man who had been located by police with such a device. The court ruled that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. Last year, a federal judge suppressed DEA evidence resulting from the use of a cell-site simulator.
Lots of different agencies across the US use cell-site simulators -- the ACLU has found that at least 72 agencies in 24 states and Washington DC use them. They're used by the FBI, ICE, the IRS as well as police officers, and the NYPD has said that it used them 1,016 times between 2008 and May 2015.
This ruling is the first to restrict the NYPD's use of cell-site simulators, which could have an impact on how the nation's largest police department utilizes them going forward. "This decision stands for the principle that, in the criminal justice context, the technology has to be reviewable in a fair and open way by both the courts and the defense," Jerome Greco, a staff attorney in the Legal Aid Society's Digital Forensics Unit, told the New York Times. Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the publication, "Unless we create legal limits on these technologies, and real oversight, we face the prospect of comprehensive police monitoring and tracking of private, lawful activity."
ACLU Report: Anaheim Police Excessive Use-of-Force Rate Outpaces Many Cities | KTLA
Law enforcement turned so-called City of Kindness into a nightmare.
Law enforcement turned so-called City of Kindness into a nightmare.
Police push back on report criticizing body-worn camera policies - Arizona's Family
WASHINGTON (Cronkite) – Police department policies on the use of body-worn cameras, including policies of three Arizona departments, present the possibility for abuse of the technology, according to a report released this month by a national civil rights group.
In its third annual policy scorecard, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said it looked at body camera policies to determine whether “police departments are conforming to these principles and adequately protecting civil rights and civil liberties.”
“We’re seeing a nationwide failure to safeguard civil rights, as departments adopt body-worn cameras,” said Sakira Cook, senior counsel for the Leadership Conference.
WASHINGTON (Cronkite) – Police department policies on the use of body-worn cameras, including policies of three Arizona departments, present the possibility for abuse of the technology, according to a report released this month by a national civil rights group.
In its third annual policy scorecard, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights said it looked at body camera policies to determine whether “police departments are conforming to these principles and adequately protecting civil rights and civil liberties.”
“We’re seeing a nationwide failure to safeguard civil rights, as departments adopt body-worn cameras,” said Sakira Cook, senior counsel for the Leadership Conference.
Arizona Facial Recognition Database First Step For REAL ID Implementation
Getting driver’s license puts Arizonans into ‘perpetual criminal lineup’
If you have a driver’s license in Arizona, your face now lives in a government database that uses facial recognition technology to see if you’re really who you say you are, or if you’re stealing someone else’s identity.
But that’s not the only use of the system – law enforcement at all levels can also run photos using the facial recognition technology to see if you’re wanted for a crime.
That’s what one researcher refers to as a “perpetual lineup.” Most people living in Arizona, at any given time, are part of a constant police lineup, simply by virtue of having a driver’s license.
Here’s how it works: After someone at the Motor Vehicle Division takes your photo, your face is scanned by a system based on a proprietary algorithm that analyzes facial features. The system compares your face against the 19 million photos in the state’s driver’s license database to look for similarities. If an image is similar enough, the system will flag it for further review.
The Arizona Department of Transportation publicly boasts about the more than 100 cases it has taken to court for fraud using the technology, which has been in place since early 2015.
But beyond press releases touting its successes, the department does not inform people who have applied for a license that their photos will be scanned perpetually for law enforcement purposes. No such disclosure appears on the license application.
read more
Getting driver’s license puts Arizonans into ‘perpetual criminal lineup’
If you have a driver’s license in Arizona, your face now lives in a government database that uses facial recognition technology to see if you’re really who you say you are, or if you’re stealing someone else’s identity.
But that’s not the only use of the system – law enforcement at all levels can also run photos using the facial recognition technology to see if you’re wanted for a crime.
That’s what one researcher refers to as a “perpetual lineup.” Most people living in Arizona, at any given time, are part of a constant police lineup, simply by virtue of having a driver’s license.
Here’s how it works: After someone at the Motor Vehicle Division takes your photo, your face is scanned by a system based on a proprietary algorithm that analyzes facial features. The system compares your face against the 19 million photos in the state’s driver’s license database to look for similarities. If an image is similar enough, the system will flag it for further review.
The Arizona Department of Transportation publicly boasts about the more than 100 cases it has taken to court for fraud using the technology, which has been in place since early 2015.
But beyond press releases touting its successes, the department does not inform people who have applied for a license that their photos will be scanned perpetually for law enforcement purposes. No such disclosure appears on the license application.
read more
A Former Police Officer Was Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison For Killing Walter Scott
A Former Police Officer Was Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison For Killing Walter Scott
A Former Police Officer Was Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison For Killing Walter Scott
LiveLeak.com - Body cam video shows Arizona cop shooting Daniel Shaver [After the 17:00 mark]
no lie, this shit just ruined my day.
no lie, this shit just ruined my day.
Props:
infinity and infinity
Immigration agents descend on dozens of 7-Eleven stores
Waste millions of dollars to arrest 21 suspected illegals.... Sounds like a Joe Arpaio operation.
Goddamnit
Waste millions of dollars to arrest 21 suspected illegals.... Sounds like a Joe Arpaio operation.
Goddamnit
Last edited:
Texas Jury Awards Man $1.3 Million after Home Video Proved Deputies Lied
Austin, TX - The incident took place in a rural county of 40,000 just east of Austin, at the five-acre property where Faulkenberry runs a motorcycle parts shop. The police report (PDF) by Deputy Michael Taylor, however, claims Faulkenberry wasn't the victim. Taylor asserts that Faulkenberry attacked a deputy. "I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry push Sergeant Yost with the left side of his body and elbow into a tree causing him to fall and injure his left shin and right knee cap. I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry to forcefully resist Deputies while attempting to lawfully detain him for officer safety. Deputies detained Lawrence Faulkenberry using the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from Lawrence Faulkenberry." But a secret video is closer to Faulkenberry's version of events. Thirty feet away from the melee was a home security video camera Faulkenberry had fastened to a utility pole years earlier. It captured police arriving in response to a bogus call from Faulkenberry's 16-year-old son. The teen, angry that his dad had grounded him for problems in school, told police his father was drunk and waving a firearm. The video shows Faulkenberry with his arms raised and no weapon in sight. While the officers begin to handcuff him, one deputy kicks Faulkenberry's leg out from under him, after which Faulkenberry is thrown forcibly to the ground and struck at least once in the back, according to the video. The video was enough for Caldwell County District Attorney Fred Weber to decline to press charges against Faulkenberry. "Absolutely" the video was what prompted him not to prosecute. The video (which contains no audio) has not led to the officers being disciplined or charged for allegedly falsifying police reports. Weber declined to comment on that. "Without the video I would be in prison. There is no doubt about that," Faulkenberry said.
-----------------
A federal jury awarded a Texas man more than $1.3 million in a civil lawsuit against deputies who claimed he assaulted them in January 2015.
But Lawrence Faulkenberry’s home surveillance video camera proved that was a lie.
Had it not been for his home surveillance camera, Faulkenberry might still be in prison.
Not only did Faulkenberry not assault deputies, the video shows Caldwell County Sergeant Dustin M. Yost using a judo-type leg sweep on Faulkenberry, causing him to fall down, even though he appeared to be fully cooperating.
Austin, TX - The incident took place in a rural county of 40,000 just east of Austin, at the five-acre property where Faulkenberry runs a motorcycle parts shop. The police report (PDF) by Deputy Michael Taylor, however, claims Faulkenberry wasn't the victim. Taylor asserts that Faulkenberry attacked a deputy. "I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry push Sergeant Yost with the left side of his body and elbow into a tree causing him to fall and injure his left shin and right knee cap. I observed Lawrence Faulkenberry to forcefully resist Deputies while attempting to lawfully detain him for officer safety. Deputies detained Lawrence Faulkenberry using the least amount of force necessary to gain compliance from Lawrence Faulkenberry." But a secret video is closer to Faulkenberry's version of events. Thirty feet away from the melee was a home security video camera Faulkenberry had fastened to a utility pole years earlier. It captured police arriving in response to a bogus call from Faulkenberry's 16-year-old son. The teen, angry that his dad had grounded him for problems in school, told police his father was drunk and waving a firearm. The video shows Faulkenberry with his arms raised and no weapon in sight. While the officers begin to handcuff him, one deputy kicks Faulkenberry's leg out from under him, after which Faulkenberry is thrown forcibly to the ground and struck at least once in the back, according to the video. The video was enough for Caldwell County District Attorney Fred Weber to decline to press charges against Faulkenberry. "Absolutely" the video was what prompted him not to prosecute. The video (which contains no audio) has not led to the officers being disciplined or charged for allegedly falsifying police reports. Weber declined to comment on that. "Without the video I would be in prison. There is no doubt about that," Faulkenberry said.
-----------------
A federal jury awarded a Texas man more than $1.3 million in a civil lawsuit against deputies who claimed he assaulted them in January 2015.
But Lawrence Faulkenberry’s home surveillance video camera proved that was a lie.
Had it not been for his home surveillance camera, Faulkenberry might still be in prison.
Not only did Faulkenberry not assault deputies, the video shows Caldwell County Sergeant Dustin M. Yost using a judo-type leg sweep on Faulkenberry, causing him to fall down, even though he appeared to be fully cooperating.
DWB, OKLAHOMA
'Not an equal': Tulsa man recounts 'surreal' experience of DUI-drug arrest, with blood test later finding no intoxicants
Man felt racially profiled in case that was dismissed after a blood test showed no intoxication
Complying with law enforcement? Gotta be high...../sarcasm
SMH
'Not an equal': Tulsa man recounts 'surreal' experience of DUI-drug arrest, with blood test later finding no intoxicants
Man felt racially profiled in case that was dismissed after a blood test showed no intoxication
Complying with law enforcement? Gotta be high...../sarcasm
SMH
Last edited: