Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

doc7114 t1_ixanpwb wrote

Idk why the person who wrote this is acting like the councilor is regretting voting for the ordinance. He's just mentioning that it would be good to be careful when discussing police surveillance.

25

bryanhealey t1_ixch44b wrote

yeah, this thread and article is weird. the city council and city leadership absolutely has the right and responsibility to oversee BPD activities, but that doesn't mean security of sensitive matters isn't important.

4

Yak_Rodeo t1_ixahb4s wrote

“Kade Crockford, director of the ACLU's Technology for Liberty Program, questioned the point.

BPD "is not like the CIA or the US military, it should not be handling classified information," she said.”

im not really understanding this? dont they already handle classified information like everyones ssn, criminal record, watch lists, and the like?

arguing that the police in the largest city in the state dont/shouldnt have access to restricted information seems…not correct?

11

TheLamestUsername t1_ixakhis wrote

Well some of the examples you are giving (SSN, record, etc) would be considered sensitive. But you are correct in that they do handle classified information. For example an investigation by the FBI or other federal agency may be at a classified level, and those that involved (BPD detectives and task force members) have to have clearance. Some of the cameras used may be more covert and be part of such of an investigation. The notion that they do not have or should not have access to classified info is absolutely absurd.

To add there are other types of restricted info such as grand jury info which can only be disclosed to those involved in the case.

But yes in conclusion Kade Crockford is an idiot who uses illogical arguments.

3

johndburger t1_ixaos3e wrote

Her claim is that BPS BPD should not be handling classified information, not the FBI. This is indeed true, and none of the examples of sensitive information you list are classified.

Her comment makes sense in this context:

> Flynn, who served in the Navy and said he was likely the only councilor to have actually accessed "top secret" information

8

TheLamestUsername t1_ixap3r5 wrote

I assume you mean BPD not BPS. But BPD officers do assist in investigations with the FBI, ATF, DEA and DHS where information is at the classified level. If you bar BPD from accessing classified information they would not be able to participate in such investigations. Additionally there are several other types of restricted information that she is not considering because frankly she is clueless.

4

johndburger t1_ixavmtk wrote

Genuinely perplexed by this thread. Who is trying to bar BPD from accessing classified information? The ordinance in question has nothing to do with classified info.

1

TheLamestUsername t1_ixaynrd wrote

The issue is does giving info on locations and devices put investigations at risk and would some of it possibly be part of a classified investigation.

So let’s say a few BPD detectives, who have clearance, are working with the FBI joint terrorism task force (JTTF; which is an entity some ACLU types don’t want PD’s to be involved with but let’s put that aside). The investigation is classified and has an open grand jury. As part of the investigation, a BPD covert camera has been attached outside the residence of the target as well as outside of a location he uses to meet with suspected collaborators.

Can you see the issues with disclosing the locations of the two cameras?

The notion that she actually believes that BPD does not already have access to classified info and does not think that they should, clearly speaks to how ill informed she is.

3

johndburger t1_ixb34p5 wrote

Ah I understand the scenario now. Thanks for making your point without being unpleasant.

2

bryanhealey t1_ixcg203 wrote

I'm a little out of the loop on this issue. I'm trying to catch up, but from what I can gather, I don't see why any information that the BPD would be privy to can't also be seen by the city council or the mayor. none of the information needs to be truly public.

worrying about securing the information is a valid concern, but that's not the same thing as wanting the information to not exist.

2

EnjoyTheNonsense OP t1_ixatizg wrote

You honestly believe that the commissioner does not have a clearance and does not get briefed if there is an increased threat to major cities? It is pretty reasonable to expect that a major city police department has several officers with secret or top secret clearance. This is not rocket science.

4

johndburger t1_ixavaw4 wrote

It’s possible, even likely. But none of the information we’re talking about here is classified, which is why Flynn’s comment is bizarre grandstanding, which is what Crockford was reacting to.

1

EnjoyTheNonsense OP t1_ixax7ui wrote

>BPD "is not like the CIA or the US military, it should not be handling classified information," she said.

Emphasis added to help you out. The notion that someone who is part of the process in creating this ordinance actually believes this should inform you that she has no idea how things work.

Let me know if you need me to get out some crayons to help you further.

−1

giritrobbins t1_ixcrlis wrote

Watch lists, SSNs and criminal records aren't generally classified, in the federal government much of that is access controlled but not classified. Making something secret or top secret carries a lot of implications from who can access it to how they can access it.

1

EnjoyTheNonsense OP t1_ixam8zf wrote

> What would be useful, she said, would be to get an idea of where they are across the city, to see if minority neighborhoods are disproportionately stocked with them.

The cameras should be in major crowd areas and the areas where they have shootings, and shots fired calls.

Map the shootings/shots fired then see if the cameras line up with that.

3

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ixckgdb wrote

Nah let’s do it by race instead so we can get them removed and really hamstring the police from investigating these shootings.

1

giritrobbins t1_ixcrotn wrote

Those systems don't really work well. And are horrendously expensive.

1

LivingMemento t1_ixaeh82 wrote

Ed Flynn was a surprisingly decent councilor. Then a Nazi-adjacent person was elected to the council (Erin Murphy—her family literally invented “birtherism”) and he is going full Gung Ho with that withered spur of Boston hate. Really kind of sad.

−4

jojenns t1_ixany9y wrote

I dont think judging councilors by their families (and husbands for that matter) is a wise idea nor will it go the way you think it will

0