A Pennsylvania Court Says State Police Can't Hide How It Monitors Social Media (apnews.com) 32
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the state police can't hide from the public its policy on how it monitors social media. Advocates for civil liberties cheered the decision. The law enforcement agency had argued that fully disclosing its policy for using software to monitor online postings may compromise public safety. All four Democratic justices supported the majority decision, which said the lower Commonwealth Court went beyond its authority in trying to give the state police another attempt to justify keeping details of the policy a secret. Tuesday's order appears to end a six-year legal battle.
Justifying what the majority opinion described as heavy or complete redactions on every page of the nine-page regulation, the head of the state police's bureau of criminal investigations argued that greater transparency about the policy would make its investigations less effective. The state Office of Open Records held a private review of the blacked out material and and ruled that making the policy public would not be likely to harm investigations, calling the social media policy processes strictly internal and administrative in nature. Redacted sections addressed the use of open sources, what approval is required, when to go undercover and use an online alias and how to verify information. State police also blacked out the entire section on using social media for employment background investigations.
A panel of three Republican Commonwealth Court judges reversed the Office of Open Records' ruling that the policy should be disclosed without redactions, saying in May 2018 that the state police investigations chief based his analysis about the risk of exposure on his own extensive experience. The majority decision issued Tuesday said Commonwealth Court should not have given the state police a new opportunity to lay out the supposed public safety risks. The majority ruled that Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law does not permit Commonwealth Court to order additional fact-finding not sought by state police. Andrew Christy, a lawyer with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the ruling "sort of puts law enforcement on the same playing field as all government agencies. If they have a legal justification to keep something secret, then they have to put forth sufficient evidence to justify that."
"Ultimately that relies on the voters understanding what law enforcement is doing so that then, through their elected representatives, they can rein them in when they're acting in a way that doesn't comport with what the public wants," Christy said.
Justifying what the majority opinion described as heavy or complete redactions on every page of the nine-page regulation, the head of the state police's bureau of criminal investigations argued that greater transparency about the policy would make its investigations less effective. The state Office of Open Records held a private review of the blacked out material and and ruled that making the policy public would not be likely to harm investigations, calling the social media policy processes strictly internal and administrative in nature. Redacted sections addressed the use of open sources, what approval is required, when to go undercover and use an online alias and how to verify information. State police also blacked out the entire section on using social media for employment background investigations.
A panel of three Republican Commonwealth Court judges reversed the Office of Open Records' ruling that the policy should be disclosed without redactions, saying in May 2018 that the state police investigations chief based his analysis about the risk of exposure on his own extensive experience. The majority decision issued Tuesday said Commonwealth Court should not have given the state police a new opportunity to lay out the supposed public safety risks. The majority ruled that Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law does not permit Commonwealth Court to order additional fact-finding not sought by state police. Andrew Christy, a lawyer with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the ruling "sort of puts law enforcement on the same playing field as all government agencies. If they have a legal justification to keep something secret, then they have to put forth sufficient evidence to justify that."
"Ultimately that relies on the voters understanding what law enforcement is doing so that then, through their elected representatives, they can rein them in when they're acting in a way that doesn't comport with what the public wants," Christy said.
This is so idiotic. (Score:2, Insightful)
People are actually in arms that their INTENTIONALLY public posts that that WANT to be read, are being read?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is so idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is so idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
People are actually in arms that their INTENTIONALLY public posts that that WANT to be read, are being read?
People are up in arms about the fact that the police are keeping it secret.
If there's an investigation of a specific crime, it's reasonable to keep it secret, but only until the crime is prosecuted. If it's a written policy, no, the guidelines for police operations should be public.
Re: (Score:1)
This would be like saying people are up in arms that things they do in full public view are being watched by police, but not being told about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct.
Government actions should be public and accountable.
Not sure why that's difficult to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite the dilemma for the average right-winger. They don't want "the government" to have any real authority, but they want the police to have unchecked power when they're harassing minorities.
Things would be easier for them if they'd just admit that they want special rules for "real Americans", granting them the power and privilege they believe they deserve, and another set for others to "keep them in their place".
I know a woman who's husband has been on disability for more than 30 years who rants inc
Re: (Score:1)
Another state can ask to review the policies if it at all affects anyone there and some MUST make the info public. I've always been concerned about Pennsylvania and their interpretation of a free state since it is likely if the situation were reversed they would demand the same information from another state for the sake of their freedoms....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it's a good thing they do post things in a public forum. That's how many of the January 6th terrorists have been hauled in. Because they bragged about trying to overthrow the government.
Re: This is so idiotic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...the police are actively encouraging and helping plan the crimes they later prosecute people for, which makes the police active participants in the crime. I'm not saying it's illegal for them to do so, but most people would like their police not to be criminals.
This is almost the definition of entrapment, and most definitely illegal (in the US, and most other places too).
Re: (Score:2)
The poster is trolling, and being bad at it. The last thing police want to do is infiltrate a right-wing terror group and mess up their case by doing anything which could lead to a dismissal, not to mention compromise their informants.
When people claim they were "entrapped" it means they were already planning to do something and got caught. Entrapment only occurs if you are induced to do
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends in how likely the terrorists were actually capable of doing anything without the help of the police.
There was the junkie case here in BC, they wanted to blow up the Provincial legislature, RCMP gave them a lot of help, money, access to pressure cookers, explosives ferry tickets and such. It was ruled entrapment as the junkies would never have even seriously started to implement their plans without the RCMP's help, as well as the egging on the RCMP did. So they were convicted and then the convicti
Re: (Score:3)
People are actually in arms that their INTENTIONALLY public posts that that WANT to be read, are being read?
No. People are up in arms because xxxxxx is happening when state and local xxxxxx do xxxxxx with xxxxx's xxxxx according to xxxxxx as specified by xxxxxx.
To clarify, this meant that:
-xxxxx can obtain xxxxxxx.
-All xxxxx that people xxxxxx are subject to xxxx..
-xxxxx departments may contract with xxxxx Inc. to xxxx from xxxxxxx.
-xxxxx X Xxxx xxxxx xxx XX xxxxxxxx.
-x.
If you think the above statement is a healthy characteristic of police powers in a functional justice system, then yes I suppose these concerns w
Re: (Score:2)
If that was all they were doing, it seems unlikely they would shroud it in secrecy. But not all social media posts are supposed to be open for all to read. Some are friends only or confined to particular groups. If the police were prying into those, they probably would like to keep it a secret.
Just comply (Score:2)
With lawful orders.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
With lawful orders.
This statement provides no useful value to people.
No citizen is qualified, or has the authority, to determine whether orders are lawful. The monopoly power to make that determination is vested in the judicial system. "I am not obligated to comply with your orders because they are not lawful" is nothing more than your personal opinion unless and until a court declares you to be correct -- usually several years and tens of thousands of dollars later.
We all want to think of ourselves as being able to assert ou
Re: (Score:2)
My statement was sarcasm because that is what the boot lickers love to say when the police shoot someone who is unarmed or shoot someone while one cop is yelling "get down" while the other cop is yelling "stand up" both with itchy trigger fingers. You can guess how that situation ends.
No citizen is qualified, or has the authority, to determine whether orders are lawful. .
Your statement is false. The courts have ruled that the police are not required to know the law even if they arrest you over a law that doesn't exist. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9... [vox.com]
So the burden then goes to the citizens to
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is false. The courts have ruled that the police are not required to know the law even if they arrest you over a law that doesn't exist
Let's not pretend that is the all-encompassing truth. Here is a ruling to the contrary: https://www.pacourts.us/assets... [pacourts.us]
Re: (Score:2)
My statement was sarcasm because that is what the boot lickers love to say when the police shoot someone who is unarmed or shoot someone while one cop is yelling "get down" while the other cop is yelling "stand up" both with itchy trigger fingers. You can guess how that situation ends.
No citizen is qualified, or has the authority, to determine whether orders are lawful. .
Your statement is false. The courts have ruled that the police are not required to know the law even if they arrest you over a law that doesn't exist. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/4/9... [vox.com]
So the burden then goes to the citizens to know which laws are valid and which are make believe.
We are talking about two different sides of the issue.
A) You're right that no one internal to the government is proactively reviewing every police/DA action to make sure your rights were preserved and that every police/DA action was lawful. So the burden is on you to find out what your rights are and advocate for yourself. In this aspect government is no better than your insurance company or a creditor -- they'll apply SOP and keep rolling unless you make a big enough fuss to force them to treat you right a
Have to agree.... (Score:2)
I see nothing surprising or an issue with police combing people's social media postings as part of investigations. We all should pretty much assume they're trying to do that. The part that raises eyebrows is why they'd redact practically everything describing the details on their polices/procedures for doing it.
This should all be stuff that's not surprising or alarming to read through.The fact they want to hide it and insist it MUST be kept a secret for the effectiveness of their investigating implies they'
Our police ... (Score:2)
Or is "Mildred" the name of an AI that watches doorbell camera feeds and social media posts and generates natural language reports? We're not really sure.
Millions spent on services (Score:5, Insightful)
Law enforcement can't come into your home without a warrant. But if some company were to make a micro-drone that could surreptitiously fly around your home and examine everything and then sell the video to law enforcement that would be perfectly OK
Big reveal (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
But Think Of The Children ! - If the police have to reveal their methods then criminals will find ways to circumvent that surveillance.
In other words, life goes on and criminals are always looking for new ways to evade the cops...been that way for a long long time now in human civilization.