Police Use of Social Media Surveillance Software is Escalating

[cryoshon]

Why don't we have police/state targeted surveillance software? A million data points about police activity on social networks (on their personal accounts) would be a trove of enlightenment for the public. It's clear that they won't be transparent or share info about their personal or professional activities willingly... but we need the information regardless of their intransigence. Why should they be allowed to have privacy when they are so keen on abusing ours?

I'm sure they feel the same way about us, but the honest truth is that going tit-for-tat against them re: surveillance works far better for the public as a whole.

[draugadrotten]

> surveillance works far better for the public as a whole.

A good read on the topic from Dr David Brin, http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html

[pc86]

This is something I would donate quite a bit of time and money to.

[gerbilly]

>It goes without saying that speaking out against police violence or government overreach shouldn’t land you in a surveillance database. But it can, and it does.

People need to realize is that social sites are voluntary surveillance platforms to begin with.

In the best of cases they surveil you to learn what advertisements to show you, but of course once the infrastructure is built, it can be put to other uses.

Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and update it for them!

[cryoshon]

>Social media gives the government and spy agencies undreamed of power. They don't have to create a file on each citizen, the citizen will create and update it for them!

Which is exactly why accessing this kind of public and innocuous info needs to require a warrant when the police do it. Unreasonable surveillance/stalking of an individual is not acceptable.

We also need to clarify what "public" social media postings really mean. The intent is for a limited audience of peers to recieve postings, not the entire world, and not the police. Conflating a desire to communicate with friends with a desire to be surveilled is a mis-step that the police and state are happy to abuse.

[panic]

Sure, but what's the alternative? Social media is too involved in most people's lives for them to just leave. Maybe we should have legal restrictions on what data can be collected.

[nxc18]

Activists broadcast messages publicly on social media; public servants read them.

How is this controversial? If you want privacy, surely you should understand that sharing on the web isn't the way to go?

In a lot of these cases where protests turn into violent riots a police response is necessary, if at a minimum to keep the peaceful protestors safe. Using publicly available information to facilitate that makes perfect sense.

[okwhatthe2]

You're forgetting that in many cases these protests turn violent as a direct result of police confrontation. In that regard these surveillance operations only increase the likelihood of escalating tensions between citizens and police.

[cryoshon]

The concern is that the police are considering peaceful activism as hostile intent, and escalating scrutiny accordingly.

Furthermore, more monitoring of activists provides more chances for incitement/provocation by the police as needed.

[panic]

How does any part of "monitoring hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and #ItsTimeforChange" work toward keeping peaceful protestors safe? These people are the peaceful protestors.

[infodroid]

Nobody should be in a police database just for joining a union or showing up at a protest.

[brbrodude]

So, so naive

[throw2016]

There is an worrying dissonance in democratic societies that treats protest like a paranoid regime would.

The use of surveillance is highly questionable for citizens exercising basic rights. Military grade equipment and a heavy handed approach suggests a level of paranoia that does not seem at ease with basic democratic principles.

Protests, large crowds and activism are essential aspects of a vibrant society, they also have potential for volatility and disruption. If you can't accept this and put law and order above all else to the extent that you need to monitor and confront citizens how far away are you really from a police state?

[rm_-rf_slash]

It goes without saying that this kind of survellience is not going to stop, possibly ever. Therefore, it is only fair that the tools and data collected by public servants is made equally accessible to the public. This provides a check on unprecedented power and the inevitable corruption that our current course is barreling towards.

[white-flame]

At the very least, personal privacy rights be clarified and encoded into law. Even if disreputable surveillance continues, it should then be formally classified as corrupt if not straight-up illegal activity.

[Dowwie]

How are cash-strapped police departments funding social media surveillance?

[pjc50]

They're choosing to make it a priority. Crime threatens the public, but activists "threaten" the police - by trying to make them accountable.

> "identify so-called “threats to public safety” by monitoring hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #DontShoot, #ImUnarmed, #PoliceBrutality, and #ItsTimeforChange."

[bediger4000]

It's probably easier to monitor ordinary, lawful political conversations on social media, than it is to monitor people taking some steps toward confidential, conspiratorial conversations.

Also, the social media stuff directly concerns the police image, and stature in society. Funding observations of criminals and miscreants is just their regular job. They don't get as much status for just doing their job as they might lose from institutionalized accountability.

[rectang]

They can save money by outsourcing surveillance to Iran, whose monitoring of social media was very effective in countering the Green Revolution.

[TeMPOraL]

It's pretty cheap, I guess. Cheap and easy to paint as effective (regardless of actual effectiveness).

[EliRivers]

Overt threats: Unions.

Them commies are everywhere.

[marcusgarvey]

Except police unions. The cops think those are just fine.