Stupidity and Lack of Accountability in Enforcement
Because I’ve been blogging lately about how law enforcement can get out of hand and start to look very much like [tag]terrorism[/tag] itself when it is not accountable, I want to call attention to a couple of incidents in which I found at Aetiology (Mail harmless bacteria, go to jail). You can find further information at Effect Measure.
In these cases minor errors on the part of individuals involved in research got blown way out of proportion, and yet the authorities can’t simply back off. They have to find someone to blame, thus justifying all of their time and expense.
But I think there’s something else at work here. Back in 1985, shortly I first established a computer BBS system (The Wind Dragon Inn, in Bellevue, NE), with a majestic 20 MB HD and 1200 bps modem, I got a call from an FBI agent. She was investigating a case of credit card fraud, and the individual charged with fraud had called my BBS. I’m not sure what the precise connection was, whether he had charged the call to a stolen card, or whether there was some other fraud involved.
The agent asked me what I sold–nothing. Then she wondered why people would call that number. I explained that they would connect to the BBS and exchange messages or download public domain software. I was unworried because I was fanatical about only having legitimate software available for download. She asked once again then whether it was possible I had been defrauded. I said, no, it wasn’t, because there was no money being exchanged over the BBS at all.
I thought that was it, but then she asked the question. “What exactly is a computer bulletin board?”
For the next half hour I discussed how bulletin boards functioned, what people did with them, how e-mail (such as it was) was handled in those wondrous FidoNet days. She thanked me profusely for taking the time to help her out. Her bosses had dumped the case on her and she had no background for it.
I thought that was a minor case due to the newness of the computer industry, but the more I see the more I suspect that there is a great deal of ignorance driving enforcement in very technical areas. People are evaluating risks who do not have the basic knowledge needed. I’m sure there are experts around somewhere, but I suspect that such overreactions do not come from people who truly understand what they are dealing with, but rather with people whose training amounts to concentrated seminars on the general outlines.
True accountability for law enforcement should involved persons who are intimately familiar with the standards and dangers of the particular fields, whatever those are. We see too many appointments in government much like the ones in FEMA (not to mention other agencies) at the time of Katrina, in which government officials who didn’t even have a fig-leaf worth of knowledge were trying to run the relief effort with predictable results.
Respect for law enforcement is good. People who deserve respect welcome accountability.
Henry, the technlogical ignorance of law enforcement (and prosecutors) isn’t just a thing of the past. Recall that a substitute teacher was prosecuted and convicted of exposing children to pornography when her classroom computer, inadequately protected by the school’s network administration, flashed images generated by malware. Her conviction was overturned on appeal, but the original prosecution was abysmally ignorant at base. See here for the story.
I would say that the cases cited in the two blog posts I linked to also demonstrate your point. When I read those stories my thought was, “They aren’t catching up, are the?”
And, I fear, they never will catch up.
As a police chaplain, I think all of you need to comment only on what you know as opposed to what you think.
The police invesitgate what they are called upon to investigate. They do their best, but just as there are many things pastors are called upon to do, they cannot know everything.
The root of the problem is that people want law enforcement but they don’t trust it at the same time. Frankly, the police are damned if the do and damned if they don’t. The cops I know want to be accountable and they try to do the best job they can. Are there abuses at times? Of course there are, and when there are, you will take note of it; but you will ignore them when they do their job protecting the public.
Remember, you can criticize them for things on which you are quite ignorant, but when you call them to protect you, they will be there.
Disgusting!
I hear your disgust, but I am unimpressed. I do support law enforcement with my voting for tax support, and I do notice their successes.
On the other hand, there is a significant problem with the ability of law enforcement to deal with technological issues. No amount of hand waving about supporting the police will help in that case. The only thing that will help is improved education in those areas.
I think the correct answer is always accountability, and very often police and law enforcement don’t want to be held accountable. Perhaps we’ll come out with a balance here at some point, but I will continue to call attention to this particular type of failure.
Henry:
With all due respect, the only response i have is to your views is “cow cookies.”
To say that often police don’t want to be accountable is a statement made from somone who is ignorant whan it comes to the community of law enforcement.
What you think is true is certainly not in my exprience, nor is it in the experience of the International Conference of Police Chaplains.
Check out the organization; you may learn something,
[chuckle] I can translate. “all due respect” is pretty close to none. And with all due respect, I have the same reaction to your response.
I have a high respect for your job, and also for law enforcement. You won’t believe me, but that’s unimportant for my point in this case. I also have a high respect for the military and am myself a veteran. Yet when there is a problem, such as the recent nuclear incident in the Air Force (my branch of the service), I don’t go emotional about defending the folks who did it; I fully condemn their actions.
Now if you make a false accusation, I don’t respond that the military is there to defend you, as I was personally for ten years, and that it’s disgusting that this should be so. Rather, I will tell you that your particular accusation is false and I will tell you why. If I don’t know I will check it out. If I can’t discover the truth, I’ll probably just ignore the accusation and go on.
As an aside, when nuclear protesters picketed the base at which I served, and trespassed to make their point, and said some quite ugly things amount those of us who were serving, I was not disgusted. I was glad to defend their right to do so.
Now let me apply this specifically to this issue. I and those to whom I linked have pointed out specific failures of law enforcement with regards to difficult areas of technology. There are several things that could be done about this including better education, more use of experts in the appropriate fields, and also a necessary level of accountability to prevent overreacting based on ignorance. You responded emotionally to my position. You called me ignorant, and claim, based on your personal experience, that I’m talking about something I don’t understand.
But I don’t see any information or logic from you at all. Do you have expertise in the specific areas in question? If so, you have failed to show it. You have simply shown me that you support the police as a general matter. In several cases of accusations made, I have had a similar emotional response, though I hope I would try to back that up.
What would I do specifically about these issues? First, if as has happened in my own county there’s a chance to vote on money for “extras” for law enforcement, especially when those extras look like essentials, I’m going to campaign and vote for it. (We passed the tax issue, which included money for some other projects, for what it’s worth, though I believe they’re still underfunded in some areas.) If that little bit of extra money involves additional training in technology and dealing with scientific issues, or for hiring experts, all the better.
If, on the other hand, law enforcement officials (in all of these cases at the federal level) behave in a manner that I believe is counterproductive, I’ll continue to point it out.
Henry:
The false assumptions in your response are too many to respond to.
I am simply trying to point out that there are folks, and it appears to me that you are in that camp (and i am open to being shown otherwise), who are more than ready to jump on law enforcement for “so-called” abuses, before sorting through the facts. Your assumption is guilty until proven innocent.
As a chaplain, I was part of a situation where an officer abused his authority. The matter was investigated internally, and it was concluded that action needed to be taken against him. In the meantime, the press had a field day reporting that the police would take care of their own and ignore the truth in favor of protecting the “brotherhood.”
You accuse me of sweeping assumptions. I won’t deny that, but you are also guilty of such things when you say that very often law enforcement does not want to be held accountable. How do you know this?
The media hates law enforcement and cannot wait to find a story or manufacture one that will make those who protect us look bad.
The only requirement in being a reporter is to be an idiot.
As far as the recent matter in reference to the Air Force, you and I would be in agreement.
Feel free to respond. I have said what I wanted to say.
Well, I wasn’t going to, as I’ve said pretty much all I have to say as well, but then I read this:
Speaking of sweeping generalizations. . . .
Henry:
I won’t deny that it is a sweeping statement, and certainly too harsh. But I have been on the other side of reporters in reference to law enforcement matters. I have found that most (not all) of the time it is like sharks swimming around blood in the water.
By the way, believe it or not, I enjoy reading your blog. You publish thought-provoking posts.
The reason I underlined it was that I’ve made similar statements myself on this blog and ended up apologizing for it–it is too sweeping, and we owe a great deal to the press in this country, even though sometimes I think the actual reporters are too stupid for words.
And I yours.
Agreed!