Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheLamestUsername t1_ixaynrd wrote

Reply to comment by johndburger 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

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