Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:56AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Not-that-NSA,-the-other-one. dept.

The US National Sheriffs' Association wants Google to block its crowd-sourced traffic app Waze from being able to report the position of police officers, saying the information is putting officer's lives at risk.

"The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action," AP reports Sheriff Mike Brown, the chairman of the NSA's technology committee, told the association's winter conference in Washington.

Waze, founded in 2008 and purchased 18 months ago by Google for $1.1bn, has about 50 million users who anonymously share their locations to help gauge road traffic flows. The app also allows police reports and road closures to be added to maps and shared with other users.

Brown called the app a "police stalker," and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk. Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, said his members had concerns as well.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/26/nsa_gunning_for_google_wants_copspotting_taken_off_waze_app/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:30AM (#138451)

    Probably wouldn't like it much if we could find out which police are where, and with whom... Funny, how important trust is.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by arashi no garou on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:35PM

      by arashi no garou (2796) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:35PM (#138515)

      Funny, how important trust is.

      Indeed. They want us to trust them to uphold the law and protect us, when sometimes it's them we need protection from. Yet, they are trying to force us into silence against our will and against the Constitution, because they don't trust us.

      And make no mistake, not only do they not trust us, they are trained to not trust us. One of the very first things a prospective cop learns in the academy is that "every citizen should be approached as if they are lying and can't be trusted". They are training to go to war with the citizens they are supposed to be protecting. I'd wager that most cops don't take that training literally and they use their best judgement when handling a situation. But there are a few (and it's a growing number) who eat that shit up like it's ice cream in a heat wave, and those are the ones making the news for beating up old men on traffic stops, or shooting children playing with toy guns. Even worse, sometimes that bully type ends up promoted to chief or runs for election as sheriff and wins. That's when the entire force gets purged of good cops and the ranks are filled with bullies and power-trippers. I've seen it happen more than once back when I worked in it, and it's scary as hell.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:43PM (#138585)

        Do unto your neighbor as you would have done to you, three letter traitors.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:23PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:23PM (#138621)

        or shooting children playing with toy guns.

        Maybe if somebody could get the kids to stop removing the damn orange safety nub. Every single time I hear about it in the news, the victim removed the orange thing that is there precisely to prevent this situation from happening.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:42PM (#138626)

          Or, bear with me on this one....Or, they could, you know, talk to the kid before shooting them. Make an effort to diffuse rather than assassinate the situation.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by arashi no garou on Tuesday January 27 2015, @09:16PM

          by arashi no garou (2796) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @09:16PM (#138636)

          In a way, you have a point. Then there's the guy in the Wal-mart who was leaning on a toy gun with the orange nub intact, who was shot in the back as soon as the officer saw him. No talking, no negotiation, no assessing the situation. He was a black man holding a toy gun, and that was enough excuse to shoot first and never ask questions.

          So, no, the orange nub does absolutely nothing to make you safer. If the officer is intent on killing someone that day (and especially, it seems, if you're a person of color or just look "undesirable"), you're dead on your feet.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:03PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:03PM (#138648)

            So, no, the orange nub does absolutely nothing to make you safer. If the officer is intent on killing someone that day (and especially, it seems, if you're a person of color or just look "undesirable"), you're dead on your feet.

            No, you just cited one specific instance where the nub didn't help. There are still plenty of times when it does, when e.g. the officer isn't just out to shoot somebody.

            Don't say "absolutely nothing" when it's so trivial to disprove your argument.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:17PM

              by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:17PM (#138671)

              Thanks for the reminder to paint the muzzles orange on all my real guns.

              --
              The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
            • (Score: 2) by arashi no garou on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:39PM

              by arashi no garou (2796) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:39PM (#138685)

              One instance out of many. By the same token, you can't claim that every single time an officer saw a toy gun with an orange nub, he magically didn't shoot.

              And I said "absolutely nothing" because in that case it did "absolutely nothing" to prevent a death. Whether the gun he was holding had the nub or not didn't matter, because that officer set out to murder someone that day.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:30AM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @02:30AM (#138716)

                I'm willing to bet that keeping the safety tips ON provides a BETTER chance of not getting shot for the pool of all incidents of this type.

                There, are our senses of pedanticosity satisfied yet?

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:06AM (#138693)

            Ohio is an open-carry state.

            If the toy gun had instead been a real weapon loaded with real bullets, the dude would have been within his rights to possess it pretty much anywhere in that state.

            He was murdered by racist cops in a racist city because of the color of his skin.
            The racist jerk that called it in and lied about the facts is culpable as well.

            The 12 year old who was shot within seconds of the racist cop showing up on the scene didn't stand a chance either.

            -- gewg_

        • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:08PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:08PM (#138898)

          Or maybe cops should stop using overwhelming force unnecessarily. Instead of blaming the kid for the cops' own actions (deciding to shoot him almost immediately), how about blaming the cops who choose to shoot? If you're so afraid of the gun, how about pulling farther away (rather than right next to the person you believe has a gun) and demanding they drop it? The cops are putting themselves into situations where they will, by their own standards, likely have to resort to extreme force. "Oh no, he's reaching for the gun!"

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:31AM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:31AM (#139080)

            I'm by no means excusing the actions of the cop(s) in question. Largely I agree with you.

            However, we can go on about how the authorities in question SHOULD act differently, but not taking off the orange tips is something that WE can do to make ourselves more safe. We have little if any control over how the cops act, but all the control over how we act.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday January 29 2015, @05:41PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday January 29 2015, @05:41PM (#139231) Journal

          Every single time I hear about it in the news, the victim removed the orange thing that is there precisely to prevent this situation from happening.

          That's interesting -- every single time *I* hear about it, the officers had no damn reason to use lethal force *even if it was a real firearm*. Not sure what country you're from, but FYI, owning real firearms and even carrying them around in public is all perfectly legal in the US. Where I grew up you can hardly take the dog out for a walk without running into someone walking around with a real, loaded firearm -- often while engaged in illegal behavior -- and none of them were ever shot by the local police...

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:37AM

    by mendax (2840) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:37AM (#138452)

    "The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action...."

    Oh, how the ACLU will pounce upon this if litigation is started or statutes are put into effect. This is a First Amendment issue. Furthermore, the public have a need to know where the police are to avoid them for a variety of legitimate reasons, especially if a person lives in an area where the police are not to be trusted.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:14AM (#138459)

      My minor cop-spotting story.

      Background:
      I have had a valentine 1 radar detector for nearly 2 decades. I'm not a habitual speeder, and I don't think it has ever saved me from a ticket (I have never had a ticket, not even in my teen years when I drove like a madman). Instead I use it as a cop detector. Lots of cops like to leave their radar guns on all the time even when they aren't tagging people because many of the models take a few minutes to warm up, so it is easier for them to just leave it hot all the time. That behavior turns radar detectors into cop detectors. I like to know when a cop is in the vicinity because, with the lack of oversight, I consider them a risk just like a drunk driver. The V1 makes for a particularly good cop detector because it has directional arrows that give you a general idea of where to look (or look out) for the cop.

      Story:
      About 10 years ago I was driving cross-country and it was like 2 in the morning and I was running really low on gas and the map I had said there was a gas station about 4 miles down the next exit off the interstate somewhere in the middle of nowhere iowa. I get to the station and not only is it closed it has been demolished, just a parking lot and weeds, no other buildings around. So I figure I'll keep going and hope to eventually find an actual town.

      I'm driving and my V1 starts going off, and I'm thinking "great! I can ask the cop where to find the nearest gas station, finally a cop will have a chance to actually help me out for once in my life!" I got about 2 more miles down the road before I finally reach the cop. He's in the unlit parking lot for some little storefront with his lights off, partially obscured by the sign out front, just lurking. If I didn't know to look for him, I would never have seen him.

      I pull in and drive right up to him, driver-side window to driver-side window. No reaction. I'm thinking this is kinda weird and my V1 is still going 100%, although I muted it, so I know I got the right cop. I get my flash-light out and shine it in the cop's window. Sure enough, he's in there. Sound asleep. I decided that waking him up would be a bad idea, there was a chance he'd be so embarrassed that he'd take it out on me with a ticket or one of those arrests for failure to respect an officer. Better to risk running out of gas in the middle of nowhere than deal with that shit. So I quietly pulled out of the lot and proceeded down the road for another 10 miles until I found an open station. On my way back, he was still there with his radar gun on full blast. I didn't pull in to see if he was awake though.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mechanicjay on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:30PM

        by mechanicjay (7) <mechanicjayNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:30PM (#138598) Homepage Journal

        This is kind of what I was thinking. Why isn't this being touted as a public safety bonanza? Now you know where to find help when you need it! Weird that they're on the defensive about this.

        --
        My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
    • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:36PM

      by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:36PM (#138573) Journal

      Unfortunately, the ACLU has been demonized as a super-liberal anti-American organization for holding America to it's own standards. I'm not sure how much popular support they get anymore.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:51AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:51AM (#138454)
    How about don't make yourself identifiable as a cop and don't logon to waze, the zillions of GPS running apps, etc?

    Too often stupid/careless cops get OTHER people killed so it's hard for me to get upset about merely the _possibility_ of a few more stupid/careless cops getting killed.
    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:30AM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:30AM (#138473) Homepage

      How about reading the summary before jumping to conclusions?

      The app also allows police reports [and locations] and road closures to be added to maps and shared with other users.

      This isn't happening because cops are logging into Waze.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:59AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:59AM (#138496)
        They can go fuck off even more then. Police speed traps, road blocks, closures etc DO BELONG on the waze and other maps.

        If people knowing where police road blocks/closures/etc are scares any policemen that much they should stop being cops. They are a disgrace to their badge. Cowardly policemen are a great danger to the public and bad for law enforcement. I'm a coward too, but at least I don't pretend to be a cop and shoot/abuse people because I'm afraid that I might get shot and possibly killed.
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tibman on Tuesday January 27 2015, @03:07PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 27 2015, @03:07PM (#138559)

        The AC does have one part right though: How about don't make yourself identifiable as a cop
        If being identified as a cop was dangerous then people wouldn't have those cop license plates. Not only that but if people wanted to kill a cop they would just find a place with line-of-sight on a police station, walmart, school crossing, or similar. This app does nothing to endanger cops.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:20AM (#138695)

          Donut shops.

          -- gewg_

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:24AM

    by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:24AM (#138462) Journal

    ... they have nothing to fear.

    What's sauce for the goose...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:53PM (#138554)

      Imminent special pleading [wikipedia.org].

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by pkrasimirov on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:30AM

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:30AM (#138463)

    > responsible corporate citizen

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha, hahahahahahahhaahhaha, hahaha. Hahahahahaha. Haha.

    Hahahahahahahahaha. No, seriously, hahahahahaha.

    Ha. Good start of the day. Haha.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:34PM (#138514)

      Responsible corporate snitch is what they are. Edward Snowden revealed Google's been part of the PRISM scheme to pipe your information to NSA since 2009. Riding along Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and others.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:36AM (#138464)

    ... Start tagging them as road hazards...

    • (Score: 2) by Covalent on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:48AM

      by Covalent (43) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:48AM (#138493) Journal

      This was the first thing I thought, too. Cat's out of the bag on this one.

      --
      You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:47AM (#138476)

    beta site for listing a LEO's badge number, posting a review and giving them a 1-5 star rating on how big of a douche they were that day...

    http://www.copscore.org/ [copscore.org]

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:39PM (#138526)

      "Sign in using one of the social networks below.
      Facebook, Twitter, Google"

      You gotta be fucking kidding me!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:10PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:10PM (#138616)

      Any crowd-sourced rating system is only marginally useful in my experience. People will give them 0-star reviews "because he ticketed me and I'm mad I got caught," not "because he ticketed/detained me in an unlawful manner and I am actually sure it's a violation of a specific right I posess."

      Plus, y'know, the cops will start anonymously uprating themselves.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Covalent on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:46AM

    by Covalent (43) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @10:46AM (#138492) Journal

    I like this feature because cop = traffic jam. People have to drive 2 miles per hour on the interstate to see an officer helping an old lady change a flat like it's Kim Kardashian riding an elephant or something. When I see the police icon, I don't avoid it for fear of a ticket, I just know I'm going to be sitting there for 15 extra minutes for no good reason.

    Also, radar detectors went through this same scrutiny and the 1st amendment trumps all. Sorry cops, but it's "We the people".

    --
    You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
    • (Score: 1) by Michael.Jackson on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:52PM

      by Michael.Jackson (1266) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:52PM (#138517)

      Radar detectors are still illegal depending on which state you're driving in. I happen to live in Virginia where they are illegal.

      Related story: I used to drive a truck cross country back when the speed limits were universally 55 on all major roads. I bought a radar detector, kind of a squarish looking thing, I'm thinking it was a FuzzBuster brand but not sure. Anyway, I'm heading north on I-35 going through San Marcos, Texas, the detector is quiet, I top a hill and surprise, the lights on the waiting cruiser start twinkling, the detector never chirped once. I pull over to the shoulder, the officer parks his cruiser just to the right side of the truck cab. After exchanging pleasantries and being handed my ticket for 66 in a 55, the officer gets back in the cruiser starts to pull back on the highway. The radar detector, that heretofore silent companion, decides that right then is the time to notify me about the presence of radar and emits a warning chirp. I don't know if anyone else found it useful, but that device went out the window right then.

      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:18PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:18PM (#138619)

        Because he couldn't possibly have figured out what your speed was without using his radar...

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @12:41AM (#138698)

        In Virginia as well, nearly 40 years ago, I was on the rise of a hill on the interstate.
        The cop was on the downhill side.
        My FuzzBuster (in a kleenex box on my dash) -did- pick up his radar and I backed down my speed before he had a visual on me.
        A guy passed me and that was the guy the cop stopped.

        Regulation of radio receivers is a federal matter.
        I'm surprised this state-level prohibition hasn't been nullified by a federal court.

        -- gewg_

      • (Score: 2) by damnbunni on Wednesday January 28 2015, @10:59AM

        by damnbunni (704) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @10:59AM (#138822) Journal

        Virginia is the ONLY US state where radar detectors are still illegal.

        (They're illegal in DC as well, but that's technically not a state, so nyah.)

        They're also prohibited on military bases, but so are lots of other things.

        Virginia's ban would probably be struck down like all the other states' bans if someone bothered to fight it all the way to the top.

        Also, while the Fuzzbuster was one of the first affordable radar detectors it was also complete and total crap. To the point where when Fuzzbuster submitted one to Car and Driver for a comparison test. they took a Fuzzbuster case and put an Escort inside it because they knew the Escort was going to kick their ass.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:15PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:15PM (#138617)

      Which 1st Amendment right protects owning a radar detector?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      You're not communicating with anyone...are you saying that the radar detector displaying a "cop detected" icon on the screen is considered "printing"?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:13PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:13PM (#138902)

        Which 1st Amendment right protects owning a radar detector?

        You're picking up communications. The government also can't stop everyone from hearing something.

        And rather, where in the constitution does it give the government the power to prohibit you from owning one?

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:37AM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:37AM (#139081)

          You're not answering the question. But we're getting into "the Constitution doesn't say anywhere that I shouldn't have the right to own nukes" territory again, and that's an argument I'd rather not have again.

          The government also can't stop everyone from hearing something.

          Legally, maybe not. Pragmatically? Sure. Ever since the Supreme Court ruled the NSA wiretapping was legal (when CLEARLY a blatant violation of the Constitution) I've lost any faith in our government abiding by its own rules. It's been too many generations since those in power actually believed in them.

          And rather, where in the constitution does it give the government the power to prohibit you from owning one?

          Well, the Constitution delegates all powers not assigned to the federal gov't to the states, so that's something right there. State government is at least closer to the people so you should in theory have more power to effect change there if you want to.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:54AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday January 29 2015, @02:54AM (#139082)

            Well, the Constitution delegates all powers not assigned to the federal gov't to the states, so that's something right there.

            That's the states, and the states are still bound by the bill of rights (and often have similar things in their constitutions). I was speaking of the federal government in that instance, but that doesn't matter since the federal government just does whatever it pleases.

    • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:47PM

      by Nobuddy (1626) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:47PM (#138627)

      When I rule the world, one of the laws I will put in place is simple. A rubberneck law.

      A camera with a radar gun will be put at the site of a stop or wreck. Another on the approach to grab license plates as they come/go. If the camera can see the driver's face as they pass, the driver loses their license for 6 months. If there is a gap or speed variation greater than X, each of those is another 6 months on the suspension.

      Fuck rubberneckers in the ass with a pineapple.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:16AM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:16AM (#138500) Journal

    Hmm, so citizens are not allowed to talk to one another about what the government is doing? We are to subject ourselves to their total population control with no pushback from us because it makes their jobs easier? The more these guys get the basic power dynamic in a democracy wrong, the likelier they are to make their worst nightmares of civil insurrection come true.

    We do not serve them--

    They. Work. For. Us.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:26AM

      by c0lo (156) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:26AM (#138504) Journal

      They. Work. For. Us.

      You can delude yourself, but it won't fool them. My bet? Not until that nightmare you mentioned actually happens.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:39PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:39PM (#138546) Journal

        Yes we all know that's not the way it really is, but "They. Work. For. Us." is an assertion of how it ought to be, how we have always been told it was, and what we will have. How we get from where we are to that which we will have ("will," as in "mean to have") is the big question mark. If the Masters of the Universe mean to hold out until there is no choice but to go out via the guillotine, that is their choice. Or they could recognize the way things are headed, as we all do, and acquiesce peacefully.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:36PM

          by fadrian (3194) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:36PM (#138611) Homepage

          Or they could recognize the way things are headed, as we all do, and acquiesce peacefully.

          We can always hope (humanity does advance, after all), but peaceful acquiescence is a relatively recent development and history provides many more counterexamples.

          --
          That is all.
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @09:38PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @09:38PM (#138642) Journal

            Yes, it does provide many more counterexamples, but the counter-counter examples show it doesn't have to be that way. And I suspect it might ultimately be in our collective best interest to avoid that blood-letting if we can, because that tends to allow other, different sociopaths like Stalin and Mao to rise to the top because they're the ones who don't shy away from mass executions of their enemies.

            Now, I'm as vindictive as the next guy. I would like to see every last bastard on Wall Street swing from lamp posts, even though I know and like a few guys who work on Wall Street. But it's possible it would be just as satisfying to see them breaking rocks or sentenced to feed starving orphans in Africa. Or to sort through garbage dumps like the poor do in Rio. And maybe they and everyone else can learn some important lessons about right & wrong, humility, and humanity along the way.

            That said, the sick bastards in the CIA who tortured people and the guy who ordered it should face the death penalty, period. No excuses there, and no forgiveness. Only justice.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:57AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @11:57AM (#138509)

    obviously arresting someone is alot of work and costs tax payer money.
    VISIBLE police on patrol helps keep criminals away.
    thus maybe if criminals would get a heads-up that there's police it's less work all around.
    i'm sure the police can also report that we "will be there" at noon to deter future crimes.
    i really don't get.
    this is like giving the police-cop in a really really blue uniform and making him/her like 20 feet tall. this is a "good" cop because s/he is easy visible.
    on the other hand a police-cop in a hand-me-down-faded-out blue uniform 10 inches tall doesn't make for a good "demonstration".

    if they want invisible cops (and less paperwork) they should just deploy soldiers ..

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @12:08PM (#138510)

      you mean:
      "help! help! okay google. where's the next cop?" maybe?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:19PM (#138578)

      Arrests may mean more paperwork, but arrest numbers are used to justify continually increasing budgets. If your police force is keeping crime at bay through visibility & patrols then their budget will suffer until they are no longer able to be successful. Once the crime rate starts going up (due to the budget cuts) they'll get a budget increase.

      It's all about the money. It's always about the money.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @07:45AM (#138791)

        good point.
        it seems that people working for the police force don't mind if their work costs more money and thus requires more taxes because they either don't pay taxes or are ahead of the "tax-incress" curve, that is they gain more by being expensive and paying more taxes ... hmmm ... maybe the police force should invest in more crime?

  • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:31PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:31PM (#138523) Homepage

    I am having trouble finding any sympathy for the police in this situation. It isn't like they don't do the same things to regular people [startribune.com] but instead of manually entering the information like the users of Waze do it is entirely automated so it grabs every license plate it happens to see. It isn't like people haven't been signaling to other drivers that a cop is ahead for ages, with bear checks, or flashing of brights on the highway during the day.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    • (Score: 2) by halcyon1234 on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:56PM

      by halcyon1234 (1082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 28 2015, @01:56PM (#138860)

      with bear checks

      Not every day this happens but... I've never heard of this one, and Google's no help. Can you define a bear check?

      --
      Original Submission [thedailywtf.com]
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:39PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:39PM (#138527)

    Just once, I'd like people to be upfront with their motives. Yeah, yeah, I know. But still.

    There's a very good reason cops don't want people knowing where speed traps are. It's because it makes speed traps ineffective. This is the same reason cops dislike radar detectors, laser detectors, and people flashing their brights to let oncoming cars know where the speed trap is (I was in the car when a buddy was pulled over for this, despite it not being a crime).

    And let's face it - traffic tickets are big business. There are small towns that get a sizable percentage of their municipal budgets from speed traps with huge speeding fines on nearby interstates. Which is a dangerous line to cross - when the proponents of "justice" stop seeing the fines as an incentive to enforce the law and more as "how we get paid," well, their motives get conflicted. The reason red light cams caught on wasn't that they improved safety, but rather that they made money.

    Disguising it as a "public safety" message is offensively playing on people's fears. Hey, remember those two cops that were shot in New York? If people knew where the cops were, more people would probably do that, so we need to hide all the cops! Capitalizing on senseless tragedy to advance an unrelated agenda is a scumbag move.

    Knowing that there are speed traps are makes people drive safer. Wasn't that the point of the exercise in the first place?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:42PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:42PM (#138529)

      I get the need to abbreviate, and that acronyms overlap, but when you throw the acronym "NSA" into a headline about "gunning for Google," you're creating a decided impression that the article is about something very different (and deeply of interest to this community) than the actual article is.

      Wouldn't "Sherriffs gunning for google" have conveyed similar information while avoiding the ambiguity?

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:49PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:49PM (#138551) Journal

        From the Not-that-NSA,-the-other-one. dept.

        Point taken, but the clue is there right next to the title. I'm off to give 100 lashes to LamX for his subtlety. :)

        --
        We are always looking for new staff in different areas - please volunteer if you have some spare time and wish to help
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by WillR on Tuesday January 27 2015, @03:25PM

          by WillR (2012) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @03:25PM (#138561)
          "From the Not-that-NSA,-the-other-one. dept."

          What the headline giveth, the tiny print taketh away.
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:33PM

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 27 2015, @07:33PM (#138610)

          I'm sorry, I got to laugh here a little :)

          Until your comment, I was definitely under the impression that the NSA was for some reason assisting law enforcement in asking for these concessions from Waze. The tiny print got me too...

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:07PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @08:07PM (#138615)

        Sheriffs? Sherives? :)

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:30AM

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <{axehandle} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday January 28 2015, @03:30AM (#138733)

        I get the need to abbreviate, and that acronyms overlap, but when you throw the acronym "NSA" into a headline about "gunning for Google," you're creating a decided impression that the article is about something very different (and deeply of interest to this community) than the actual article is.

        Wouldn't "Sherriffs gunning for google" have conveyed similar information while avoiding the ambiguity?

        From el Reg [theregister.co.uk]: "Not that NSA, the other one"

        --
        It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:44PM

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:44PM (#138575) Journal
      "There's a very good reason cops don't want people knowing where speed traps are. It's because it makes speed traps ineffective."

      You kind of touch on this as you go on but you dont make it very explicit. This is true or very false, depending on what you posit to be the desired effect of the speed trap.

      SUPPOSEDLY these things are there for purposes of safety - getting people to slow down. And if that is actually the goal, publicizing them, far from making them ineffective, is actually a force multiplier making them much more effective. If that's your goal, you don't hide the cruiser, in fact you put up warning signs instead. This actually induces people to check (and appropriately reduce) their speed.

      But the *real* goal has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with "revenue." To protect and serve... themselves.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:55PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 27 2015, @01:55PM (#138534)

    No comments on the app?

    I figured it was a dotcom bubble kind of thing? I tried using it a couple years back around the buyout time, and not too many people use it here, so at a ratio of like 10 people per 4 million person metro area, 50 million users would imply a worldwide population of 20 trillion or so, sounds like a puppeteer world or trantor before the fall. I suppose 50 M might have logged in at some point in the previous ... forever, and the worse the local infrastructure, the more value the users obtain off reports of failed infrastructure (traffic jams, etc).

    Also I bet road layout has a major influence... I don't live in a grid area, so if there's a traffic jam between A and B then there's really nothing I can do about it. I know in areas like Chicago there is a radial grid of interstates so you could drive around, other than everything being in perpetual backup conditions so there's no gain in trying anyway.

    Its a difficult app to find a real world use case.

    I tried using it as a driver and it was too clumsy to safely use while driving... makes texting while driving look safe, especially around accidents or whatever, morons slamming on the brakes. Its really slow and painful and agonizing to click off an accident on the side of the road or whatever. Also I'm usually doing something else with my phone while driving (mostly podcasts and audiobooks, sometimes music) so that adds to the difficulty. If there was a home screen widget I could click to report stuff... maybe they've added that?

    I found the gamification aspects weird. "Everybody gets a trophy" is one of those things that is a minor +1 for maybe 25% of the population and an icky repellent -100 for maybe 10% of the population, such that its going to be a net loss, or another way to look at it is its narrowcasting down to a sub population. The exact numbers don't matter but maybe it would have 150M users if they ripped out gamification. Gamification is kinda like the horrible animated active DVD root menus that people used to have to suffer thru before streaming wiped out DVDs. Believe it or not, 99% of the population hated those damn things but we were all stuck with them because 1% of the population actually liked them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 27 2015, @02:22PM (#138543)
      Have you tried not irresponsibly playing with your phone/endangering others while driving?
    • (Score: 1) by skater on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:37PM

      by skater (4342) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:37PM (#138574) Journal

      I use it frequently and it works beautifully - either in and around the city or out on the open road, on weekdays and on holidays. This is mostly in the eastern USA, so there's good population density, which obviously is a factor. It's been far better than any other source of traffic information for me; when we run into an unusual slow spot on our way to work, my wife will first check Waze to see what's going on, and the information is always there.

      I agree that indicating a new hazard can be a bit distracting, so I rarely do it while driving.

      Also, gamification works for many, many people. Every app of this type (crowd-sourced data) has it. People feel rewarded for contributing...contribute more, get more rewards.

  • (Score: 1) by mr_mischief on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:56PM

    by mr_mischief (4884) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @04:56PM (#138577)

    Radio and TV stations report on accidents, stalls, and arrests that are clogging up traffic, too. We'd better stop all of it or none of it.

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:51PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @05:51PM (#138589)

    Well sheriff, you should have all thought of that before you all went out of you way to make it 'us vs. them'.

    You all have treated the citizens as 'the enemy' for long enough that even Joe Clueless has caught on.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:03PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:03PM (#138592)

    ...of a law enforcement individual being harmed because of this app? I sincerely doubt it.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:36PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 27 2015, @06:36PM (#138601) Journal

      ...of a law enforcement individual being harmed because of this app? I sincerely doubt it.
       
      Of course there is! Their budget is clearly being harmed due to reduced speeding ticket income.
       
      (tell that Poe guy this is a joke)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @06:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 28 2015, @06:08AM (#138771)

    Brown called the app a "police stalker," and said being able to identify where officers were located could put them at personal risk.

    Oh no! If only they had the means and authority to defend themselves somehow.......................................