Skip to main content

BlueLine: Police with their own social media site is a BAD idea

You gotta think this one through.

Here's the appropriately bland intro from USA Today:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The final stages are near completion for the launch of a law enforcement social media network designed exclusively for the men and women in blue. 
Created by former high-profile New York City police commissioner and Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton, BlueLine is being touted as a site where officers can share their expertise, insight and information securely through video, instant messaging, videoconferencing and screen share capabilities. 
The network is scheduled to go live at the International Association of Police Chiefs' annual conference in Philadelphia in late October, Bratton said.
So what could be wrong with promoting a safe atmosphere for police officers to network?

How about everything?  Let me count the ways:

1.  The BlueLine network will be hosted on servers that appear to be accessible by the Department of Defense and the FBI.

2.  There is no civilian oversight:  only police officers and the vendors who sell them products (!) will have access [but you can bet that 'corporate partners' will quickly gain standing].

3.  Although the article says that there will be no mention of specific cases, as long as there is an instant messaging feature [which there is] and not formal oversight there is literally no way to prevent this.

4.  There is room for all sorts of unsavory behavior in the guise of fighting crime and improving homeland security.  For example, take this quotation from the story:
"This is a big void that needed to be filled," Bratton said. "Our intent is to have officers locate their counterparts and closely interact with each other on a number of topics such as gangs and counterterrorism as well as share their best practices and strategies."
OK, now take a look at this very recent article from Earth Island Journal about how law enforcement and its corporate partners are not only redefining environmental watchdog groups, but literally any organized political opposition to government programs as--you guessed it!--terrorist activity.

It is important in this context to remember the Missouri fusion center report on militias back in 2009 that had law enforcement agencies sharing the "information" and "best practices" that included defining any driver with either a Ron Paul sticker or a Gadsden flag decal on their bumpers as potential terrorists.

Formal networks of law enforcement intelligence sharing are probably (and I say this with great reluctance) a necessity when dealing with interstate crime.  But as we have seen here in Delaware with the DIAC fusion center, the lack of civilian oversight and the potential for abuse of civil liberties even with such formal networks is quite daunting.

5.  And, finally, for all that security they are hyping in the article, let me assure you that from literally day one, be the source disaffected cops, bored teen hackers, or the nonexistent Mafia, BlueLine will actually be an open book to everybody but the citizens whose civil liberties it may well be used to subvert.

But, hey, in the increasingly militarized world of American dissension suppression (sorry, I meant "American law enforcement" there), this will cause barely a ripple ... because you won't be allowed to hear about it again.

Comments

Unknown said…
I think it's a good idea where each citizen in virtual world can have law and security support from Police. But as it's a virtual world, we have to monetize or filter while some body requests to open their membership in the perspective group. So that we can avoid fake profiles to an extend. I think Social media Agency Dubaican promote these activities to promote general awareness too.
Anonymous said…
It will be hacked.

http://freakyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/we-are-anonymous-expect-us.jpg

Anonymous said…
This is ale=ready going on but there just hasn't been an official place to do it. It has alway happened in the secure forums of Police One. Nothing new here.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...