Popo wants to take out Waze

[allanoue]

In a Dec. 30 letter, LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck cited last month's killings and told Google CEO Larry Page, "Your company's 'Waze' app... poses a danger to the lives of police officers in the United States."
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/28/tech...y/waze-police/

[Sirref]

In this instance I can see the argument being presented by the popo, they're worried about safety we're worried about tickets. The lawmakers will likely side with the doughnut lovers

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Sirref

In this instance I can see the argument being presented by the popo, they're worried about safety we're worried about tickets. The lawmakers will likely side with the doughnut lovers

The first amendment will get in the way.

[snot]

I see both sides of this, but I will side with the popo. Yes, we have the right... and its freedom of... But, a speeding ticket is not worth risking someone's life. I have had my share of tickets and not once was it worth anyone dying over.
Disclaimer:
This is only MY opinion, you are not required to agree with it. I am related to a popo

[Rifleman]

Soooo, they don't like being surveilled...

what makes then think we enjoy it?

getting very tired of license plate recognition soft ware to generate a database on every vehicle and where it's at.

cell phone GPS location database, toll way transponder data logging...

if the PoPo don't like it and say it's dangerous... good, turn it all off...

Hulk.... smash

[dcj13]

Originally Posted by allanoue

"Your company's 'Waze' app... poses a danger to the lives of police officers in the United States."

All cops care about are cops. They don't give a rip about us except as a money source.

[Roark]

The app will stay..

[Brother Michigan]

Google (Waze) has already released a very good response to this, stating the obvious that the app does not, and has no capability to, "track" police.

[FreelancerMG]

I do love the irony of an arm of big brother complaining about being monitored by the people. I wonder how many other 2-way ironies we can make? Giving policemen tickets? Taxing the government? ... Kinda do that already. Defend our government from enemies both foreign and domestic? Do that too. Hmm....

We already have a 2 way ironic relationship with the government. They are just way better at it and our attempts tend to look juvenile in comparison.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by snot

I see both sides of this, but I will side with the popo. Yes, we have the right... and its freedom of... But, a speeding ticket is not worth risking someone's life. I have had my share of tickets and not once was it worth anyone dying over.
Disclaimer:
This is only MY opinion, you are not required to agree with it. I am related to a popo

What about freedom of people to tell each other various things, which just happens to include telling each other about police sighting? Would you forbid people from talking to each other altogether, or about cops specifically?

[Brother Michigan]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

What about freedom of people to tell each other various things, which just happens to include telling each other about police sighting? Would you forbid people from talking to each other altogether, or about cops specifically?

Now, now; James Madison didn't know about the internet or cell phones when he proposed the first amendment. That sort of thing doesn't apply to modern technology! [/sarcasm]

[snot]

Originally Posted by liberpolly

What about freedom of people to tell each other various things, which just happens to include telling each other about police sighting? Would you forbid people from talking to each other altogether, or about cops specifically?

Its an opinion on traffic officers only.
But since you asked, talking about certain things about others is a violation of the right to privacy, for example medical issues. Employers and medical facilities can't talk about people to other people for a reason. So, use common sense if it is medical, religion, political, or just gossip (defamation of characters) it might be illegal.



Again its an opinion and I will not engage in a war on words

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by snot

Its an opinion on traffic officers only.
But since you asked, talking about certain things about others is a violation of the right to privacy, for example medical issues. Employers and medical facilities can't talk about people to other people for a reason. So, use common sense if it is medical, religion, political, or just gossip (defamation of characters) it might be illegal.



Again its an opinion and I will not engage in a war on words

I disagree with you but I respect and see your points. Why does a difference in opinion need be a war?

[LittleRedNinjette]

I support the police. I think the app is a bad idea and would side with shutting it down for the safety of the cops.

I would like some of the "cop haters" or whatever you would like to call them to live a day in the cops shoes.

"I" = My opinion.

[KROMATRON]

if the cops know this app exists, why not stay alert while posted on the side of the highway? or just change location every so often?

its amazing how the government has once again misconstrued intentions of the public. we aren't all violent savages hell bent on destroying everything and everyone just because we can.

[Bigballsofpaint]

They could just login to waze themselves and cancel it everytime the sighting pops up.......if they are that worried.

[csmith12]

Waze is not the only app that does or can do this, there is something else at play here.

[shereth]

There's good cops out there and there are bad cops out there. I prefer to think most of them are the good cops.

I can at least sympathize with the chief's point of view. Police work is inherently risky business. Some of these men and women put themselves into very dangerous situations to try and make our lives a little safer. I sincerely appreciate them for what they do.

I can also understand the psychology behind "cops looking out for cops." People who have a shared responsibility and a shared risk tend to develop a strong sense of camaraderie. Put any group of people into a high risk situation and wait to see how long before they start referring to each other as "brothers and sisters." It's natural for them to want to look out for one another, and when they see the potential for abuse in something like the Waze app, it's natural for them to speak out against what they perceive as a threat to their own.

I disagree that the application itself is a material risk to police, and disagree with the logic of his argument. Is it possible that someone will use the Waze app to track a police officer with the intent to do said police offer harm? Sure it's possible. Just like it's possible that people are going to post police officers' locations on Twitter or Facebook or ninjette.org or any other given website. Just like it's possible for people to use their cell phones to text one another or call one another to keep tabs on patrols.

So I can sympathize with the desire to protect one's own, but disagree with the logic of his statement and request.

[Worldtraveller]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

I support the police. I think the app is a bad idea and would side with shutting it down for the safety of the cops.

I would like some of the "cop haters" or whatever you would like to call them to live a day in the cops shoes.

"I" = My opinion.

Your little disclaimer about your opinion would have more weight if you hadn't already classified those defending freedom of speech as cap haters.

It is more interesting to me to see those who come down on the side of the police over and over again tend to be the same people, regardless of circumstance. It's almost like the police can do no wrong in their eyes.

Many others at least manage to express sympathy and support for the police in difficult situations, while still being able to criticize them when they trample our rights. Wanting to hold them accountable != cop haters.

Just my opinion.

[LittleRedNinjette]

Originally Posted by Worldtraveller

Your little disclaimer about your opinion would have more weight if you hadn't already classified those defending freedom of speech as cap haters.

It is more interesting to me to see those who come down on the side of the police over and over again tend to be the same people, regardless of circumstance. It's almost like the police can do no wrong in their eyes.

Many others at least manage to express sympathy and support for the police in difficult situations, while still being able to criticize them when they trample our rights. Wanting to hold them accountable != cop haters.

Just my opinion.

I refer to people that have proclaimed themselves as said haters by saying "i hate cops". I am not only referring to this or any thread, but the general population. I work with someone who calls themselves this. That was not an attack on anyone. You may insert any term you wish.

Do i think all cops are perfect? No, they are human just like you and me. No human is perfect or will never make an error.

I do look at both sides. But in almost all the scenarios i've seen, i feel the cops made the best call they could. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I dont want to live in a world where the criminals have more rights and power then the cops, so i will always support them as a whole and not condemn them all for the few "bad" ones. Bear in mind the bad one will always get the most media attention. But thats another story.

These are my opinions and i will always stand by them. I hope i have cleared up anything that may have come off wrong in my post.

[FreelancerMG]

I really don't see the safety argument so much. Any illicit organization that wants to hunt a cop down already can since any group that wasn't established yesterday already has a system in place to monitor and report police presence throughout their territory. Anyone who would want to use this app to "hunt" officers wont be able to really use it effectively because officers generally practice proper setup and establish a strong parameter. They set themselves up in places where no one is really going to be able to get to them without them seeing them first. In areas like DUI checkpoints and such, are usually manned by multiple units and a potential cop killer would have a platoon sized force to death with.

As I said, I personally don't see the safety aspect as a large factor at all. I would though have used the potential illegal ramifications of obstruction as the argument to get rid of the app. Usually when police setup a fixed trap for a day, they usually do it with multiple units. They used to hook people up who would pass the initial officer and flash their high beams with obstruction charges by a second officer who was positioned passed the first officer in case someone got by the first officer.

[subxero]

Why do you need to keep track of where the police are at any given time?

Simple, because you don't want to get caught breaking the law.

[alex.s]

police scared of surveillance? haaaaaaaaaaaaaa. now THAT is ripe.

police should absolutely 100% be under surveillance by all of us. why? because they are responsible for protecting us. we are responsible for maintaining our protectors as such. they should be protecting us. if they are protecting us, watching out for them should be something they appreciate. surveilling your protector normally would be a good thing. unless they are not acting as your protector, they have no reason to hide. they should be 100% transparent. put a big sign on them that lights up that says police. sneaky police hiding in the shadows leads to corrupt police hiding in the shadows. have them all wear body cameras that is accessible every day to anyone who wants to see what they are doing.

you don't get to make good people suffer the consequences of bad policing because there are a few enemies out there that look like citizens. you don't get to take away what makes america "the land of the free" simply because you don't know how to respond to a threat.

[liberpolly]

Originally Posted by snot

Its an opinion on traffic officers only.
But since you asked, talking about certain things about others is a violation of the right to privacy, for example medical issues. Employers and medical facilities can't talk about people to other people for a reason. So, use common sense if it is medical, religion, political, or just gossip (defamation of characters) it might be illegal.

Again its an opinion and I will not engage in a war on words

It is not a war of words, it's me trying to understand how do you and people who agree with you form your opinion. Your example is not helping, since medical employees cannot disclose your medical information because they very specifically signed an agreement that they will not do so, as a part of their employment. The citizens walking on a city block did not sign an agreement not to disclose location of the police on public forums. You may shut down the app by google, but then another app will show up, this time hosted in Russia. So you either have to accept it, or make it illegal to citizens to publicly disclose the location of police officers. Do you want to guess if this law will stand a Supreme Court review?

[LittleRedNinjette]

When peoples views are so drastically different on something like this it is impossible for one extreme side to change the others views or opinions. At least not in this kind of setting. you will never convince the "other guy" that "you" are exclusively rite. Is doesn't matter if there even is a truly right or wrong side. Even in matters of opinion, like one side says "i think green is the superior color" and the other says "no purple is far more superior". Neither side is right or wrong but neither side will convince the other.

In the end threads that go in these kind of directions tend to do nothing but rip us apart on the forum. I'm guilty of it too.


So on that note,

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

When peoples views are so drastically different on something like this it is impossible for one extreme side to change the others views or opinions. At least not in this kind of setting. you will never convince the "other guy" that "you" are exclusively rite. Is doesn't matter if there even is a truly right or wrong side. Even in matters of opinion, like one side says "i think green is the superior color" and the other says "no purple is far more superior". Neither side is right or wrong but neither side will convince the other.

In the end threads that go in these kind of directions tend to do nothing but rip us apart on the forum. I'm guilty of it too.


So on that note,

this is only true in cases where there isn't a single correct answer that can be quantifiably proven and instead only answers that vary slightly by opinion or interpretation.

the real answer lies further toward the core principals of the question...

let's examine those core principals.

1. communicating with others or sharing ideas.
- this is the basic freedom at the core of all free societies. without the freedom to exchange information readily, you have only censorship. you have only authoritative dictatorship.

2. discussing or sharing information about someone with someone else that is publicly available
- a bit more specific than the above, you are sharing information about a specific person or group of people. but the information is publicly available to those who seek it out in person. seems like this is absolutely required to be protected by law as freedom of speech. how could you possibly argue against the ability to freely share information that is already public. trying to censor information leads to totalitarian governments.

3. talking about the police with people
- so it's one step further... the difference is, the person you are talking about is a person charged with protecting us. why would our protectors be given rights we as citizens are not afforded? if you are banned from talking about police, what is next? banned about talking about politicians? banned from making negative connotations? banned from disagreeing with the people who are supposed to represent you? banned from drawing a picture of a prophet? banned from making a joke because some people might be offended by it?

4. sharing information about someone that someone else could use to harm that person, but that information is publicly available.
- this gets a bit more grey. but i believe it falls under the same conclusions. if it is publicly available knowledge, anyone can get to it. if anyone can get to it, anyone should be allowed to share it. information isn't harm. using information to harm someone is harm. but if that information is publicly available, the person sharing it has not effectively changed anything. nor have they caused any harm. a person causing harm to another person --regardless of their means-- is responsible for harming that person. not the first person who told the second person where to find the cop. the person trying to harm the cop is responsible.

5. sharing information about someone else that is not publicly available
- heres where things get sketchy. private information has many different levels of sensitivity. private information can be used to hurt people. certain information is only shared with other people under contracts. like your doctor. your doctor is under a contract not to share your private information with other people. and so you give them your private information and trust them to keep it private. if you violate that contract and share private information- you have broken a legal contract. there are punishments for breaking contracts.

your location in a public space is freely obtainable knowledge by anyone who wants to possess this knowledge and is in your vicinity. public officials are required to wear name badges. there is absolutely no private information about where a public servant police officer is located. in fact this is by definition a public matter.

so- there we have it. if you want to live in this country which has as part of its constitution --the core principals of this country-- protection for the free sharing of public information, then do so. otherwise, maybe you should not live in a country whose core principal is free sharing of public information. freedom of speech.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by shereth

I disagree that the application itself is a material risk to police, and disagree with the logic of his argument. Is it possible that someone will use the Waze app to track a police officer with the intent to do said police offer harm? Sure it's possible. Just like it's possible that people are going to post police officers' locations on Twitter or Facebook or ninjette.org or any other given website. Just like it's possible for people to use their cell phones to text one another or call one another to keep tabs on patrols.

That's my take on it. Completely separate from all of the arguments about whether the app feature should exist or not, and whether users of the app are conscientious drivers or hell-bent speeding anarchists; removing the app feature does nothing at all to improve an officer's safety from someone who wants to harm a cop.

Heck, it's easier to order a cop (in this skewed viewpoint, a "target") to your door (or your pay phone) than it is a pizza, and they will probably arrive faster.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by Alex

That's my take on it. Completely separate from all of the arguments about whether the app feature should exist or not, and whether users of the app are conscientious drivers or hell-bent speeding anarchists; removing the app feature does nothing at all to improve an officer's safety from someone who wants to harm a cop.

Heck, it's easier to order a cop (in this skewed viewpoint, a "target") to your door (or your pay phone) than it is a pizza, and they will probably arrive faster.

i think -- playing advocate here-- a good equivalent argument for him would be calling police from a pay phone to some empty area and then ambushing them... calling them to their house would be pretty obvious who the perp was.

[spooph]

This is a little like the gun argument... People apparently don't kill people... Now apps kill people too!

[LittleRedNinjette]

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

Any time i got pulled over i was doing somthing wrong and deserved it. I may have been unhappy about it but i had only myself to blame for it.

I just realy don't understand the need for it.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

Any time i got pulled over i was doing somthing wrong and deserved it. I may have been unhappy about it but i had only myself to blame for it.

I just realy don't understand the need for it.

your statements do not change the facts.

you are right, most people don't need it. but the fact is, just because the people who mostly use it are criminals, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APP IS CRIMINAL. there is a MASSIVE distinction between those two.

you cannot simply criminalize legal behavior because the people you don't like do that.

[alex.s]

if criminals started using google to search for information on their victims, does that mean we should ban google because it makes information available to us easier? fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no.

[LittleRedNinjette]

Originally Posted by alex.s

your statements do not change the facts.

you are right, most people don't need it. but the fact is, just because the people who mostly use it are criminals, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APP IS CRIMINAL. there is a MASSIVE distinction between those two.

you cannot simply criminalize legal behavior because the people you don't like do that.

I never said that Alex.

[Bigballsofpaint]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

Any time i got pulled over i was doing somthing wrong and deserved it. I may have been unhappy about it but i had only myself to blame for it.

I just realy don't understand the need for it.

Its not an app for lawbreakers, it helps monitor the flow of traffic. You can put there are objects in the road to avoid (tires), cops ahead is just one of the things you can say are up ahead.

[fishdip]

Any one who this this app needs to be taken down is just as stupid as the ones who thinks taking all guns away will stop criminals from using them. If I am going to kill a cop I will do it with or with out this app.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

There are any number of responses to a question like that, that range from plausible to unlikely; but all of them fit in the category of a conflict between personal liberty and government oversight.

Why are radar detectors legal? Why is strong encryption legal? Why do we all have personal phone lines at home instead of a party line shared with our neighbors? Why do we care whether police need warrants for searches or some surveillance?

The very simplistic "If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care?" question comes across as a bit naive.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

Any time i got pulled over i was doing somthing wrong and deserved it. I may have been unhappy about it but i had only myself to blame for it.

I just realy don't understand the need for it.

You obviously haven't used the app... No disrespect here, but this discussion is centering around just 1 of the reports... Wayz has a much accurate traffic monitoring feature, making navigating around traffic really easy! Also, the more people use Ways, the more traffic is distributed along all arteries, not just the major ones, which could result in slight traffic decongestion...

I'm also not sure if this happens in your area, but on I-70 coming down from the mountains/ski traffic etc, it's common to run into stand-still traffic from 70mph (which is the speed limit). Wayz gives you a headsup on this so you can slow down before.

There are many other reports about hazards in the lanes, or for how many miles the traffic is terrible and accidents alerts or shopping for gas prices.

As a rider, we're safer the farther we can see. This allows us to see farther (if you ride with ear buds). So, again, I don't mean any offense, I simply mean to say there are many real benefits to the app, which is why I use it all the time... Sure, it helps with avoiding speeding tickets, but it also helps people keep safe.

As somebody else mentioned, cops could actually use this to their advantage, BIG TIME. Instead of posting 1 or 2 cops on a free way to make money writing tickets, have 1 cop drive around once, posting LEO alerts themselves, then kick back and enjoy the coffee... But safety and revenue aren't always the same thing. Or, if they feel threatened to have their location reported, simply report it as a false report...

Now, I'm not trying to hate on cops, thems doing their jobs is what we pay them to do.... Laws and a driver's education program/long distance transport of goods and services by interstate instead of train require traffic laws which are laughably slow and stupid, so I will direct my frustration at that, kick back and enjoy my cup of coffee or music at the speed limit.... This is why I ride a 250 and not something bigger.

[alex.s]

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

I never said that Alex.

you aren't saying that, but the guy demanding google get rid of it is. it is a common problem. look at pot. why is pot illegal? because people who were viewed as law breakers used it. and so they made it illegal so they could arrest those lawbreakers. when in reality, they created law breakers by criminalizing normal, legal behavior.

[InvisiBill]

This is just another case of people not understanding technology. The app has the ability to report stationary, traffic-related data. This includes things like cars stopped on the shoulder, water over the road, closures due to special events, and police (as in a speedtrap, traffic stop, or accident scene). The app is 100% user-reported data, meaning it's not guaranteed to be complete, current, or accurate. It has no ability whatsoever to track the police, much less a specific officer, without another Waze user standing next to that LEO submitting updates however frequently is required to be considered "realtime". https://www.waze.com/livemap/ is the extent of the data we're talking about.

It's already been ruled that it's protected speech to flash your headlights to warn other drivers of police in the area, and this is just a more technologically advanced version of that. As stated already, if this is banned, you'll just see Facebook/Twitter/Ninjette/whatever posts filling the void. Before long systems will be automatically pulling that data in, and it'll act exactly as it does now, just with some extra junk in the middle.

If someone really wants to find a cop to attack, I'm sure there's a better way than scouring semi-anonymous traffic reports.

"They're in clearly marked cars," Mueller said. "They're public officials conducting a public duty in a public space. There's no expectation of privacy."

Originally Posted by LittleRedNinjette

But this app will only benefit lawbreakers and such. If you aren't doing anything wrong or driving like an ass you're fine, what do you need it for?

In some places it's required by law to slow down or move over for emergency vehicles stopped along the road. This aids that greatly. Even if I'm not doing anything wrong, I still appreciate advance notice of unexpected things on the roadway.

[fishdip]

This sums it up