Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

johndburger t1_ixaos3e wrote

Reply to comment by TheLamestUsername in Now he brings it up: Councilor worries ordinance requiring info on police surveillance technologies could mean release of 'classified' information year after he voted for it by EnjoyTheNonsense

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