A Bay Area news site is reporting that California Highway Patrol officers regularly steal nude photos from female arrestees' phones and share them with each other (and outsiders) in what one officer has described as "a game."
The California Highway Patrol officer accused of stealing nude photos from a DUI suspect's phone told investigators that he and his fellow officers have been trading such images for years, in a practice that stretches from its Los Angeles office to his own Dublin station, according to court documents obtained by this newspaper Friday.
CHP Officer Sean Harrington, 35, of Martinez, also confessed to stealing explicit photos from the cellphone of a second Contra Costa County DUI suspect in August and forwarding those images to at least two CHP colleagues. The five-year CHP veteran called it a "game" among officers, according to an Oct. 14 search warrant affidavit.
Here is part of a text conversation between Harrington and another officer, Robert Hazelwood. When Hazelwood mentions "the dl" he's probably refering to the victim's driver's license photo.
Hazelwood: Nudes are always better with the face
Harrington: Maybe she knows she has a jacked up horse face?!?!?
Hazelwood: Let's see the dl.
Harrington: When we get back to the office. And we'll have MDF mug shot, too
Hazelwood: Haha ok.
Harrington: But trust me. She's like a 5 or 6 at best.
No officers have been charged, obviously.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:16AM
Copying is not stealing. Stealing means depriving someone of a possession without their consent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by compro01 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:10AM
I wouldn't put stealing the physical phones past them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Dunbal on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:41AM
Civil asset forfeiture. I believe that phone could have been used to commit a crime. I don't have to prove it. You have to prove you didn't use it for a crime if and when the phone is put on trial. Free phone!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jimshatt on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:37AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:25PM
Parent makes a good point. The reason those who condone filesharing make this distinction is because we are socially conditioned to regard "stealing" as a priori evil; it has a much stronger connotation than "infringement", which sounds like a technical violation.
So the poster of TFA didn't want to say that the cops merely "infringed" the privacy of women. Language makes a difference.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:07PM
The issue with that distinction is presumably the images were not intended for distribution to a wide audience. Generally the artistic-work type items are intended to be shown to as wide an audience as possible (hopefully for money). Many real, true artists actually don't even care about making huge sums of money and just want their work seen, heard, exposed to / enjoyed by as many people as possible as long as they could somehow make enough money to have a decent standard of living.
One guy I know (http://www.johnnyjuke.com/ [johnnyjuke.com]) was the front man for a local rock band that played regularly where I was the house soundman for many years and I got to know him well. He has played all sorts and types of music, can play virtually any instrument you lay before him, makes leather craftwork; you know, a real artist type. He is probably best known for his Blues work and has released several albums that even got some radio play and sold a few CDs. I recall one day, many years ago he came into the club, chuckling to himself, because he just got his latest royalty check, his biggest one ever, and it was all of something like $18. He wanted me to join him for a shot of liquor so we could both enjoy the profits from his life's hard work. :) This huge cheque was due to some recent radio play in Europe, some DJ had found his stuff and was playing it and the local record distributor ordered up several hundred copies of one of his albums (an early one, too, humorously) to stock the local stores. That was his cut. He STILL makes music. He knows he'll never get rich from it but he loves it. It's who he is! He plays in bands, hosts blues shows, makes artistic trinkets. A true artist.
It always makes me laugh when, for example, the rights holder to a television shows that has been aired many times on free OTA broadcasts across the land tries to stop you from obtaining a copy of their show. Within my lifetime, television has gone from something that was free; the producers of the shows and the broadcasters wanted as many eyeballs to see every single thing they produced. Now you are expected to pay $100+ per month for the privilege of watching their shows. No thanks! When I was a kid, CBC didn't even have commercials smack dab in the middle of our kiddie shows. Now the shows themselves are generally just thinly veiled advertising....
But, I digress....
They shouldn't be stealing private photos.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:06PM
OT but what else are forums for?
The sad part is the show was paid for by the advertisers. They made their money. There should be a point in time when the show is relegated to oldies channels like TV Land that the show should be put into the public domain. I mean do the owners of the Three Stooges or Our Gang (Little Rascals) need to keep making money even though almost everyone in those shows is dead and buried, some for decades? Nonsense.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:48PM
I am the poster of TFA, and I disagree. The issue is not the copying of publicly available information; the cops actually took physical possession of the victims' phones, searched them without warrants for something that has nothing to do with illegal activity, and took the information they wanted without asking. If you copy publicly available information I don't consider it stealing, but if you break into my house to steal my bitcoin keys that is definitely stealing by any reasonable definition of the word. The cops stole the photos and then proceeded to share them. I stated "steal" and "share" as separate things in both the summary and the headline. Neither you nor grandparent have made any good points.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @02:01AM
the cops actually took physical possession of the victims' phones, searched them without warrants for something that has nothing to do with illegal activity
I remember there was much amusement on sites like Slashdot and Reddit when nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and others were hacked and posted. Many speculated that it was a false flag, the celebs did it for publicity or b/c they were exhibitionists.
There didn't seem to be any discussion on the ethics of ogling the pics from 4chan or other sites that had posted them. What's there to discuss? Digital goods are an infinite good, what's out there is out there.
Now, but THIS is different because.... it doesn't seem OK anymore. See, this the problem of having a system of Internet (mob) justice based mostly on the likes, dislikes, and convenience of the readers and posters. It's not justice at all.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:00PM
Coward pls. Post your password list so we can copy it. It's not stealing.
Copying is not the problem, like crying "Fire!" may not be a problem unless you are in a crowded venue. What about considering the consequences of the act of copying?
Record companies are the first to circulate stuff freely, even paying up for airspace. Then, when you're hooked, they want to dictate how you listen to your music and tell you what is public execution or not.
This is different. I do not think those public officers should be charged. They should be stripped nude, with their family (18+ of course!) and people should circulate their photos. They should not complain, just a game.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:49PM
12345
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:43PM
Hey, that's the password to my luggage!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @12:39AM
The music files are private property, and so are the pics. The pics were shared - just not with the general public.
Anyone care to re-clarify what the word "stealing" means in the Internet age?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:51AM
So Pigs and Nudies are more important than NASA rocket blowing up. Fuck BETA SN!!! Time to grow up SN.
Dam /. sucks, SN sucks... what's a Geek to do?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mtrycz on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:06AM
What you fail to see here is that the dragnet surveillance and this thing here are not that far apart.
It's both abuse of power, both unwarranted search, both invasion in privacy.
Yes, one is largescale and automated, other is personal and done "by hand", one is more dangerous in terms of mass effects, the other is more outrageous for its personal offence.
But it's not the effects we're ighting against here. It's the wicked logic itself. The same that inspires both.
Thank you.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:00AM
I just saw that GP didn't say NSA, but NASA. Must be tired. Disregard my other post.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:34AM
But NASA gathers information from space without a warrant, potentially invading the privacy of aliens. So it's clearly the same thing! ;-)
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by jimshatt on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:40AM
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by azrael on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:38AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:40PM
Why not "send it out" when it's actually submitted, or at least approved. Instead others submit the news and then get disenfranchised by the whole process.
(Score: 1) by azrael on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:54PM
As editors we will learn better when to push stories to top of the queue or not, and user feedback on this is very important. Do you miss out by seeing the story elsewhere and not being able to discuss it here until a few hours later? With the current small editing team there will ALWAYS be times when there just simply isn't an editor around to push a story - more editors please.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:09PM
> Dam /. sucks, SN sucks... what's a Geek to do?
Suck himself off?
You seem to be doing a good job of that, at least metaphorically.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:12PM
I didn't click through to the articles, but why is it obvious that no officers were charged?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:21PM
Because anyone paying attention knows that police accountability requires the highest possible standard of proof.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:29PM
Because this is america. A cop could club an old lady walking down the street, drop trou and leave a steamer on her forehead and get administrative leave. The rules do not apply to them.
I can barely imagine what a cop would have to do to get charged with a crime. My guess would be either a) steal from the police or b) embarrass a politician or major corporation.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 1) by goody on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:49PM
I agree. This kind of cynical commentary horseshit is one reason I left Slashdot. We don't need it here. Editors, do your job.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:00PM
Is it still cynical when it's factual?
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:33PM
The inclusion of this "cynical commentary" leads to a more accurate article than its omission.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:10PM
I disagree in that the presence or absence of "obviously" lends nothing to the accuracy. Its inclusion only flies if you agree with the statement, and it fosters a hive mindset that is prevalent over at Slashdot. I would wager there would be a lot of people worked up if the next article about Snowden closed with something like "This obviously shows him to be a traitorous bastard who should go to jail".
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:37PM
I wrote the summary, and thus the "obviously" (obviously). Do you really believe that police are held accountable for their crimes to the same extent that regular citizens are? It seems to me that there is a persistent pattern of cops getting away with shit like this, and worse. I don't feel bad about stating that in plain English instead of dancing around it. If the cops magically had been charged I probably would have wrote something along the lines of "Officers Harrington and Hazelwood have both been charged with _________ and face __ years in federal prison, surprisingly." And I would actually have been surprised! A lot of other readers would be, too. I really don't think your Snowden example is analogous, but I am okay with seeing little hints of opinion that I don't fully agree with in summaries. SoylentNews is people, and people have opinions. I worry that when modern journalism tries to strip away all bias they end up stripping away opinions that don't fall into the majority bias, the things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on, and that isn't unbiased at all. Saying that it's obvious that no officers have been charged with a crime is a statement of sad, simple facts. At least it looks that way from where I'm sitting.
(Score: 2) by hubie on Thursday October 30 2014, @03:16PM
I think it an unnecessary and misplaced addition. This isn't an issue of trying to present two sides of an issue, it is simply about stating the facts, or the facts that are related to the linked story.
As for this story, I honestly don't know if there is a persistent problem. What are you calling a persistent problem? In this case I think you run the danger of thinking there is one because you clue in on those kind of stories. I can pull out of Google a number of stories where cops were charged with crimes, but it doesn't appear that those kind of stories get posted, or at least here they don't. Instead of a rampant problem, maybe it is only a 0.1%-level problem, but you are paying attention to the stories that report on those 0.1% cases. In fact, making arguments as to whether this is a real problem or not is excellent fodder for the discussion section.
I think this site is better served if the commentaries are kept out of the summaries, and if you wanted to add that no police were charged, just state that. The good and loyal followers of Fox News will swear up and down that they are seeing "fair and balanced" reporting not slanted by the liberal bias, but many would disagree with that assessment. If we litter the article summaries with personal biases, this site will simply devolve into a hive mentality where you are not allowed to express certain opinions and you'll drive away readers who don't think like you.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday October 30 2014, @08:57PM
Man, we must be living in different Americas. This is what my America looks like. [wikipedia.org] The issue in the main story isn't just the four(?) officers definitely known to be involved in the ring, it's also all of the other cops who must have known this was going on and didn't do anything. It's clear that this was behavior that they were pretty open about, the officer talking about it doesn't even seem to get how horrible he sounds when calls it "a game." The criminal justice system in America treats cops differently than normal people and the problem is systemic. When you give one group of apes authority and uniforms they start treating each other differently than all the other apes. This behavior is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily think this is the case, I feel that I've seen a good mix biases in article summaries and I hope to see more. I would start complaining about bias if I noticed that the editors were all favoring a certain set of viewpoints but as long as it's across the board I really don't see the issue. I think the submission guidelines make it clear that a little bit of opinion is allowed near the end of summaries, I think the key is to keep it light.
I'd be really interested to hear an editor chime in and let us know whether they think my use of the word "obviously" crossed the line (as they see it). I try to pay attention to how the stories I submit get edited so I can write future summaries to be more in line with those changes.
(Score: 1) by goody on Friday October 31 2014, @01:57AM
No, it doesn't. How is it obvious no officers have been charged? The word "obviously" adds nothing to the sentence except to show the author's bias. If it said "No officers have been charged." it would stand as a factual statement without bias.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:19PM
This is the kind of thing that gives the entire profession a bad name. There are a lot of good people that are Police Officers, but reporting about them would be boring. Let's show all the idiots and what they have done. This kind of thing shouldn't happen and should have been stopped, before it came to something like this. This should help serve as a warning to people taking nude pictures with their phones, though. Even those that Should know better aren't necessarily trustworthy.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Mix+Master+Nixon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:59PM
A cop who knows this is going on and does nothing to stop it isn't a good person or a good cop.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:01PM
I didn't disagree with that. I was just stating that there are plenty of good people that are good cops. It's just bad people that are bad cops end up getting a lot of press.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by forkazoo on Thursday October 30 2014, @02:07AM
I think some of us have been forced to the conclusion that any definition of "good" which includes people who stand by and do nothing while their fellow officers commit horrible abuses simply isn't an acceptable definition. As far as I can tell, there are bad cops and there are collaborators. Actual good cops who fight the system seem incredibly rare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:41PM
So, has anyone considered putting a Goatse image on their phone for the police (and any other overly-curious snoopers) to find? Give them something to really talk about. Of course, they will need to wash their mind with bleach afterword, but that's their problem not mine.
Obviously. I'm looking forward to the day when we see the headline "Officers held accountable: DA declares that police are not above the law".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:58PM
It's not very hard to find these stories. This was the first Google link for me: We are not above the law. If you break the law, you will be arrested and held accountable. [wbaltv.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:33PM