A federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent on a Chicago area task force used Palos Heights Detective Todd Hutchinson’s login credentials to perform unauthorized searches this past January. Group chat screenshots obtained via public records request show the detective and the feds discussing the incident.
A bit of missing context - the officer with the access to the FLOCK system shared his account details with many other officers including the DEA agent because he thought that’s just what was done since he was the only one with an account.
Also on this:
State legislation prohibits Illinois license plate reader data from being used for immigration enforcement purposes.
Why?! Why is immigration enforcement being stifled so much? Imagine if there was a police database that could help find murderers whenever they drove their car in public and legislators said “no you’re not allowed to use that to help find wanted murderers”. It makes no sense.
Despite all the downvotes, I think it’s a reasonable enough question. It happens to have a very reasonable answer though.
First of all, your concern is largely addressed, since immigration control can still access law enforcement databases if they have a warrant.
As for why this law exists at all, well it’s actually to the benefit of law enforcement: the idea is that immigrant communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they aren’t scared that they will be the target of immigration control. This is all the more practical now, when ICE has degraded into a largely lawless and authoritarian organization, since you can imagine most immigrants wouldn’t want to say a word to any police officer unless they at least have the protections of the 2017 TRUST act in place.
Now, what I’m a bit confused about is why you are so up-in-arms about the existence of this law instead of the violation of this law. Surely if you are so law-abiding as you make out to be in your comments, you should be shouting for legal action against the police officers involved in breaking the law.
A bit of missing context - the officer with the access to the FLOCK system shared his account details with many other officers including the DEA agent because he thought that’s just what was done since he was the only one with an account.
LOLLLLLLLL
And I suppose any arrests or convictions based on that were not legal or overturned, right??
It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I’m not sure what kind of person you are, but I’m sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you’re religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you’re not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there’s probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There’s no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it’s very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn’t worth the benefits.
But if they did criminalise my favourite hobby, and they had evidence that I’m continuing to do that hobby in plain sight, they see me doing it every day……I’d expect them to come get me. That makes sense. It makes no sense to have that technology there to be used to find some crimes but not others.
I see what you’re saying. You’re not talking about “making sense” in an ethical or social well-being sense, you mean it’s literally confusing why the technology wouldn’t be used for all kinds of crimes, given that it already exists - irrespective of whether the technology should be used. Is that right? I think you’re getting downvoted because it kinda sounds like you’re saying this is all a good idea when you say it “makes sense”. Unfortunate English ambiguities. But you’re saying, like, sure it’s dystopian and creepy and wrong, but why wouldn’t the creepy dystopia use the tech for all cases then rather than just some? That’s a good question. I think because there is legitimately some understanding of the dangers of using these powerful tools willy-nilly. While people aren’t perfect angels, they also aren’t perfect devils either. Another factor is that there is some pressure to appear not to be overly heavy-handed with these tools - as we see in those chats, they knew it made them look bad for this to get out.
And the final most pessimistic factor is that this Flock company almost certainly charges per seat, so giving direct usernames and logins to every officer or even every department is probably absurdly expensive. Companies (in this case the police) will often try to limit their license seats to as few people as possible and then just funnel as much different people’s work through that one person’s license as they can.
If law enforcement had access to all of your social media, e-mails and live video feeds from inside your house then they would be able to catch criminals more effectively.
We have laws specifically limiting police powers because we recognize that there are more things to consider than simply maximizing arrests.
Protection against unreasonable search is written into the constitution, after all
Because immigration enforcement is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Imagine if the government said that license plate readers could be used to enforce copyright violations, or defamation. Say a bad word about the President and they will use the system to find your car and wait for you to send you to Alligator Auschwitz without a trial.
Entering the country illegally is a crime under federal law, not civil. Remaining in the country after your legal immigration status is up is a civil issue, but deportation is a lawful response.
Why do you think people should get to stay in a country illegally? I’m genuinely curious.
Do you think a person should be seperated from thier families, put into prison, subjected to violence, and sent to a country they’ve never been to for a misdemeanor?
Because thats a criminal misdemeanor, not civil like immigration. But you dont care do you? You got yours…
A bit of missing context - the officer with the access to the FLOCK system shared his account details with many other officers including the DEA agent because he thought that’s just what was done since he was the only one with an account.
Also on this:
Why?! Why is immigration enforcement being stifled so much? Imagine if there was a police database that could help find murderers whenever they drove their car in public and legislators said “no you’re not allowed to use that to help find wanted murderers”. It makes no sense.
Despite all the downvotes, I think it’s a reasonable enough question. It happens to have a very reasonable answer though.
First of all, your concern is largely addressed, since immigration control can still access law enforcement databases if they have a warrant.
As for why this law exists at all, well it’s actually to the benefit of law enforcement: the idea is that immigrant communities are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement if they aren’t scared that they will be the target of immigration control. This is all the more practical now, when ICE has degraded into a largely lawless and authoritarian organization, since you can imagine most immigrants wouldn’t want to say a word to any police officer unless they at least have the protections of the 2017 TRUST act in place.
Now, what I’m a bit confused about is why you are so up-in-arms about the existence of this law instead of the violation of this law. Surely if you are so law-abiding as you make out to be in your comments, you should be shouting for legal action against the police officers involved in breaking the law.
I’m not responding to you’re entire verbal vomit. am going to say this.
What youve written at the end is not what’s happening.
Username does not check out.
^for me, not for thee^ is missing from the name.
LOLLLLLLLL
And I suppose any arrests or convictions based on that were not legal or overturned, right??
Well you would assume that some people might be able to appeal based on this.
It does make sense. Police are not perfect saint-like beings, and the government is not composed of perfect beings either. I’m not sure what kind of person you are, but I’m sure there are some things you enjoy and partake in which some other social group really despises. If you’re religious, it may be militant atheists who despise you going to church. If you’re not religious, it may be militant theists who despise you not going to church. The point is, there’s probably some social cultures out there that hate you for the things that you love. Those people may not be in charge right now, but they might be one day. Those people can end up in police departments, as developers for these camera companies, as administrators for the database that collects information on where you drive and when. Those people, being imperfect as they are, may not always resist the temptation to use this system in a way to track down and identify people like you for doing whatever it is that you love and they hate. Now you end up on a list for that.
There’s no denying that sophisticated surveillance technology does make it easier to catch criminals and does legitimately protect from the threats those criminals pose. But surveillance technology, by it’s very nature, cannot surveil only the criminals - it has to surveil everyone to find the criminals. And the notion of what is criminal may change. If your favorite hobby becomes criminalized, or if the government criminalizes your identity itself, these beautifully effective tools are suddenly turned against you.
There is a happy medium to be found between giving your society tools to enforce the will of constituents, vs. giving your society tools that be too easily abused. Given that this tool is already being abused, it probably isn’t worth the benefits.
But if they did criminalise my favourite hobby, and they had evidence that I’m continuing to do that hobby in plain sight, they see me doing it every day……I’d expect them to come get me. That makes sense. It makes no sense to have that technology there to be used to find some crimes but not others.
I see what you’re saying. You’re not talking about “making sense” in an ethical or social well-being sense, you mean it’s literally confusing why the technology wouldn’t be used for all kinds of crimes, given that it already exists - irrespective of whether the technology should be used. Is that right? I think you’re getting downvoted because it kinda sounds like you’re saying this is all a good idea when you say it “makes sense”. Unfortunate English ambiguities. But you’re saying, like, sure it’s dystopian and creepy and wrong, but why wouldn’t the creepy dystopia use the tech for all cases then rather than just some? That’s a good question. I think because there is legitimately some understanding of the dangers of using these powerful tools willy-nilly. While people aren’t perfect angels, they also aren’t perfect devils either. Another factor is that there is some pressure to appear not to be overly heavy-handed with these tools - as we see in those chats, they knew it made them look bad for this to get out.
And the final most pessimistic factor is that this Flock company almost certainly charges per seat, so giving direct usernames and logins to every officer or even every department is probably absurdly expensive. Companies (in this case the police) will often try to limit their license seats to as few people as possible and then just funnel as much different people’s work through that one person’s license as they can.
It could be because immigrants are not as bad as murderers.
That’s completely irrelevant. If you can identify someone as being in the country illegally it makes no sense to not be allowed to act on it.
This isn’t a good argument.
If law enforcement had access to all of your social media, e-mails and live video feeds from inside your house then they would be able to catch criminals more effectively.
We have laws specifically limiting police powers because we recognize that there are more things to consider than simply maximizing arrests.
Protection against unreasonable search is written into the constitution, after all
You need to shut up. You’re spreading ignorance and blatantly ignoring the situation.
Again. You need yo knock it off and go somewhere magats hang out.
Because fuck ICE, thats why…
Nah. People should not be in a country illegally. They want to migrate? Do it legally like the rest of the law abiding citizens.
They’re arresting legal citizens too, chud.
Because immigration enforcement is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Imagine if the government said that license plate readers could be used to enforce copyright violations, or defamation. Say a bad word about the President and they will use the system to find your car and wait for you to send you to Alligator Auschwitz without a trial.
Entering the country illegally is a crime under federal law, not civil. Remaining in the country after your legal immigration status is up is a civil issue, but deportation is a lawful response.
Why do you think people should get to stay in a country illegally? I’m genuinely curious.
Do you think a person should be seperated from thier families, put into prison, subjected to violence, and sent to a country they’ve never been to for a misdemeanor?
Because thats a criminal misdemeanor, not civil like immigration. But you dont care do you? You got yours…
Ghoul