Hacker News Reader

Comment by hirundo | Hacker News Reader

I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims. The police are one of the most politically powerful, protected, and legally savvy groups in the country. Whether the law favors such claims or not is barely relevant to the risk of being destroyed by the cost of defending against such suits.

Legislation along the lines of anti-SLAPP laws could help, making the plaintiff pay for a failed action. But the political power of the police makes that unlikely, and if not narrowly tailored would discourage even well founded suits by plaintiffs with shallow pockets.

View on HN

Forget libel -- in some states, it potentially introduces criminal liability!

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/controversial-ant... [2021]

>"Governor Kevin Stitt today signed into law House Bill 1643, a bill that makes it crime to dox, or post personal information, of law enforcement and county officials online."

Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring attorneys.

~~~~~

[late edit]: To defend of my assertion of "egregiously unconsitutional", I'll quote this succinct summary of the enumerated First Amendment exceptions in United States v. Stevens [2010], as summarized in Rynearson v. Ferguson. I can't imagine how any of these could even loosely apply here; please correct my misunderstandings if you are able. (For those Googling things, be warned that Stevens is a very disturbing case).

> Over the years, the Supreme Court has enumerated certain “well-defined and narrowly limited’ classes of speech that remain unprotected by the First Amendment. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1949). The unprotected speech is limited to, (a) obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476; (b) defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 254-255 (1952); (c) fraud, Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); (d) incitement, Brandenbury v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447-49 (1969); (e) true threats, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969); and (f) speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Expire Storate & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). Speech that does not fall into these exceptions remains protected. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010).

https://www.eff.org/files/2019/02/22/order_granting_pi.pdf

Here's a longer (two page PDF) summary of the same, glossing some definitions:

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11072 [.pdf]

> Sure, it's egregiously unconstitutional; but just as you say, I wouldn't want to be the one hiring the attorneys.

How is it unconstitutional exactly? People seem to throw that term around willy-nilly. It is, however, problematic because it overreaches -- for example, being expected to blur out badge numbers or officer names is needlessly onerous for the reporter of a police encounter.

It seems unconstitutional to me; you have no expectation of privacy when you’re out in public, and badge numbers are legally required to be worn.

This combination in effect turns into a requirement to either not film, or not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional.

> not post videos of cops, which is unconstitutional

Just to be clear, you're not allowed to post videos of plenty of things (Area-51, a meeting between the Joint Chiefs, closed sessions in Congress, etc.). But you're right that you're allowed to record videos of cops in public[1]. I think the law in question is about personally-identifiable information.

[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1578557.html

It's perfectly legal to post videos of any of those things.

It is illegal to post a whole lot of videos you might find pretty innocuous. A not insignificant portion of America has two party consent laws[1] that really restrict what you're able to record when it comes to private individuals. It has been pretty clearly decided highlighted that police do not enjoy this commonly held right[2] due to the sensitivity of their role but I really don't know if that same restriction extends to other public offices when acting in a non-public manner (i.e. the JCS) - I am really not familiar with the specific exceptions the above comment laid out so I won't comment on them... but it is illegal to post a whole bunch of different sorts of videos.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...

2. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/you-have-first-amendme...

It’s illegal to record without consent in some states. Posting such a recording is problematic because it’s evidence of a crime, not a crime in and of itself. If it were, there would be cases of journalists posting transcripts from illegally recorded conversations, which isn’t happening.

IANAL, however my understanding is that the First Amendment protects ones’ ability to record police officers in public when acting in an official capacity.

I suppose the Supreme Court will have to rule on the issue of blurring our badge numbers during the course of a protected activity.

But this does seem related to the constitution through the First Amendment.

I think it'd really depend on whether this communication was framed as being from a private organization against the public organization or against the private individual of the officer's own person. And even then it'd likely get mired in a lot of concerns about public safety.

One of the more sane elevated rights police officers have long enjoyed is the right to extreme privacy - their phone numbers and addresses are unlisted by default and sharing the private information of an officer with malicious intent carries a more serious penalty than an equivalent action against a regular individual. Police officers face an elevated level of danger in their personal lives from persons they've arrested or interacted with - if you could spin this website as providing information that makes it easier to identify and harass problematic officers (even if they deserve a significant amount of scrutiny) you'll likely have a strong case to have the site shutdown.

Sounds pretty cowardly and against the principle of community policing.

Most people these days seem to be confused about what the term "secret police" means. It doesn't mean a police forces that the public don't know exists. It means a police force that has as some of its members, people whos identities are secret. You know, like the NKVD or STASI.

I was taught as a kid 30 years ago, during the cold war, that having a secret police was a key indicator of an oppressive regime. What you describe as "sane elevated rights" was something I was taught that we needed to fight tooth and nail, possibly with nuclear weapons.

I guess times change. Sometimes I feel like crying.

Seems about as blatant of a violation of freedom of speech as one can imagine. They’re public officials. Their personal information (name, role, jurisdiction, salary, etc.) ought to be actively published by the government. To make it illegal to publish that information is just ludicrous. Heck, I used to remember when police had to literally wear a badge that publicized their name.

> They’re public officials

They're not elected, nor are they "public persons." There are plenty of regular folks working for the city, including analysts, beat cops, secretaries, and so on.

This is extremely reductive.

> They're not elected

Who said they were?

> nor are they public

They work in the public sector. That's what 'public' means.

I think op is saying there's a difference between, for example, the Chief of Police (a public person), and an undercover police detective. I think it's unreasonable to require all government employees, from DMV janitors to CalTrans technicians, to police detectives, to have a public profile. Is there any current law that stipulates otherwise (applies to all gov employees)?

If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.

> If they're taking public money of course they should be accountable to the public.

Really? A public profile for all... military personnel. FBI, CIA, NSA employees, government contractors, employees of corporation that accepts government subsidies/grants.

> A public profile for all

Yes, unless there's some kind of security exemption then names can be anonymised. I don't think most police are doing that kind of work though?

Why do you think that's controversial? It's public money.

> government contractors, employees of corporation

The contract details should be in scope, but what the person with that contract chooses to do with that money (paying employees) is up to them and should be private.

I understand and respect your position, and think there are some merits to it, but I personally believe it's unnecessary. Typically the 'public persons' within public orgs are their senior / high-ranking officials (e.g. chief of police; director of engineering), and often are directly elected (e.g. county sheriff). If there are grievances to be had within some public sector, we as citizens can and should demand responses from the leaders of those organizations. I don't think making it easy to harass low ranking public employees is a good tradeoff for whatever is gained by requiring them to have a public profile. I think most public servants (mid/low-level employees) should be entitled to the same level of privacy as everyone else.

> They work in the public sector. That's what 'public' means.

No, in the context of the First Amendment, that is emphatically not what it means. Where did you go to law school?

I can look up my municipality's public school teachers by name, find out their exact salaries for each year they were employed, and then use those names on any site like Rate My Professors to find their reviews.

> They're not elected, nor are they "public persons." There are plenty of regular folks working for the city, including analysts, beat cops, secretaries, and so on.

As a non-elected “regular folk” kind of person working for a state government (not city, but Constitutionally there is no distinction) a lot of my employment information that would not be public (and that both I and my employer might seek to protect, or different reasons, from the public were I privately employed) is public. Not just in a theoretic sense, but actually hosted and searchable by anyone in the world in numerous databases compiled by media organizations of public data.

Working for the government, outside of where the fact or nature of that employment is itself, say, classified information, is very much a “public” thing.

Unless I am really misunderstanding the rulings on this subject, though, I believe that if you're residing in CA (or another two party consent state) you do have the ability to refuse being recorded even when executing your public duty.

Police officers get a number of special treatments that empower them with more and less rights in certain settings due to the specific nature of their job.

You can record on-duty police officers in California without their permission.

https://www.jmllaw.com/blog/keep-mind-9-rules-of-filming-pol...

https://www.solutionlawapc.com/criminal-defense/the-right-to...

https://www.vjamesdesimonelaw.com/can-you-film-police-when-s...

There was even a bill passed in 2015 (still in effect) that affirmatively declared a right to record: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

That's correct - but I don't believe other public officials similarly lack the right to privacy even while operating in their official capacity.

Ah, I see what you were saying now. It was a little confusing for me in the context of a discussion about police.

If they are in a public building with public access, so not in a restricted area, then recordings can be made. CA does have additional protections even in public concerning “confidential communications” which likely prohibit covert recording.

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

“...police have not proven themselves to be statistically worth the ‘right to privacy’.”

Your comment is extremely poorly worded with the recent and historical explosion of derision against black people, etc.

Very poor choice of words. :(

The fact that the people who can pull you over, arrest you, kill you, etc. aren’t even elected is a totally separate issue, but perhaps one that ought to be addressed! They’re still absolutely public officials.

IANAL either, but I'd expect anything that puts onerous restrictions on speech to be unconstitutional. Usually these "over-enthusiastic" laws don't define the restrictions in a narrow scope. It all boils down to the definition of PII in this law, for example. If it's narrowly and clearly defined it could pass the first amendment test. If it's not clear and instead has the effect of chilling speech because of that, it'll get thrown out.

I mean the Supreme Court just threw out the donor disclosure requirement in CA because it could have the effect of stifling free speech.

> Forget libel -- in some states, it potentially introduces criminal liability!...

> "Governor Kevin Stitt today signed into law House Bill 1643, a bill that makes it crime to dox, or post personal information, of law enforcement and county officials online."

I'm not going to try to judge how wacky that law may be, but this website definitely isn't doxxing:

1. Police officers are public employees, and often a lot of seemingly "personal information" is actually a matter of public record (e.g. salaries). The "personal information" on this website appears to be publicly available (e.g. I found this guy at random https://rateourcops.org/officer/26, it lists a phone number which Google reveals to be on his employer's website https://www.cityofalbertlea.org/contact-us/, so likely an official work number).

2. It cannot be doxxing to truthfully describe your personal experiences with a person (e.g. this cop treated me badly in this way, or I think he only did a one star job).

> It cannot be doxxing...

We all thought what Aaron Swartz was doing was clearly not under the purview of the CFAA, but he got hounded to his death by a prosecutor over it anyways.

I would not want to risk it here.

You are applying common sense in an area where the technical legality and limits of the law are very detailed and getting those details wrong will cost you a whole bunch of cash. I think the prior comment was strongly agreeing on the point that this would be a pretty silly lawsuit - but, much like SLAPP suits, baseless lawsuits that are bound to fail can still inflict a whole lot of pain on the receiver - and the Fraternal Order of Police (gosh they really need to update that name) has a gigantic war chest that can inflict a whole lot of pain.

There's a Scott Alexander essay Against Signal Boosting as Doxxing: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boostin... . It doesn't matter what the technicalities are, spreading information wide which is technically already available can be, in practice, doxxing. Having all that information in one place drastically increases the ease of harassment.

And I don't believe for one second that only bad police officers will be harassed. There are actual criminals who'd do it. There are activists who would like to get back at cops for doing things like voting for the wrong candidate, or who just aren't good at picking the correct cop to target at all. There are teenagers who'd call the cops' landlord with complaints just for the lulz.

> because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims.

Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds, that should be pretty complete protection against even a scintilla of a cognizable libel claim against the developer for user-submitted content.

States attempting criminalization of posting police related info are a bigger threat (while mostly blatantly federally unconstitutional, there's a significant risk of you being arrested, tried, convicted, and serving a sentence before you get that argument even taken up by a federal court.)

> Until one of the crusades to legislatively narrow or repeal Section 230 succeeds

Sesta/Fosta is already law. It has already started.

Section 230 should apply here. The operators of the website are not legally on the hook for what their users post.

I suspect that Section 230 protections aren't much help if the site is specifically designed for, and actively encourages, the posting of content which is (claimed to be) illegal.

Perhaps a good example of how far such a legal theory can be pushed is the case of isoHunt, a search engine which was shut down in 2013 after being sued by the MPAA.

> The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in March ruled against isoHunt, concluding that “there is more than enough unrebutted evidence in the summary judgment record to prove Fung offered his services with the object of promoting their use to infringe copyrighted material.”

https://variety.com/2013/biz/news/isohunt-to-shut-down-as-pa...

This is about as illegal, or encourages illegal activity, as Rate My Professors, Glassdoor or Blind.

That defense would apply if Police didn't have special privileges, but they do. Many locales have attempted to make things like filming police officers in public illegal

Attempted. Such laws have so far not stood up to judicial scrutiny.

Sure - but the harassment and problems that encounter even after judicial scrutiny is finished and resolved that the law wasn't legit doesn't stop the harassment, financial, emotional, and reputational cost that will be incurred.

Just because something doesn't hold up to judicial scrutiny doesn't stop TX from passing anti-abortion laws all the time and making it very difficult for women.

> I admire the courage of the makers of this site, because as a web developer I'd be dissuaded from investing much time on this due to an expectation of high legal costs to defend against libel claims.

Section 230 of the CDA shields operators of interactive computer services from liability for user-generated content. Interactive computer services are not liable for what users do with them.

A personal blog where you post your own content, however, could open you up to libel or SLAPP lawsuits.

Maybe make this a blockchain project instead. Videos of cops doing bad things should be decentralized, non-deletable, and optionally anonymous.

Sounds pretty abusable to me..

Maybe the cops should stop abusing citizens then.

So abusing innocent cops just doing their job is just collateral damage?

How would posting videos of good cops doing good things be "abuse"?

Because not every video has full context and not every use of force is unjustified?

More that a non-deletable video storage system will probably accumulate lots of spam.

Unfortunately, you probably need to add "and true" to that list, which makes the "non-deletable" requirement less clear-cut.

There is no algorithm for truth, so in practice you need a way of allowing groups to form consensus about the validity of claims relating to pieces of data in the system. A claim might be "The image with hash ABC123 is a deepfake."

It might be possible to layer a system with that amount of nuance on top of a blockchain, but you need to be really careful that your system won't end up making the world much worse before it has a chance of making it better.

Believable deep fakes, at least currently, cannot be created instantly. Blockchain guarantees whatever footage is on chain existed at the moment it was added and hasn't been tampered with since.

There are a lot of reputationally damaging images you could create for which it is not possible to determine the date when they were supposedly taken just from looking at them.

If you know that a specific cop is going to be at a specific location at a specific time, you could create the deepfake in advance and add it to the blockchain when they show up.

It doesn't inspire confidence that they don't reveal who they are - neither their About Us page nor their Contact Us has any relevant information. In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause. As Gandhi taught us, democracy survives only on trust and not fear and violence.

If one fears the misuse of power by the government through the judiciary, then needs to rally the politicians and political party to their cause too, and work from within the system.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled repeatedly that anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, specifically because anonymity enables free speech. A person who does not speak because they've been cowed into silence is deprived of their rights. "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation … at the hand of an intolerant society." (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.)

Thanks for pointing out an interesting aspect of US constitution.

It however doesn't change what I said.

When fighting political causes, anonymity doesn't help - Gandhi or Rosa Park or Martin Luther King continue to inspire us today because they faced injustice and tyranny head on. They have provided us with an effective template to fight against injustice and assert our rights.

Fear is often the reason behind anonymity, and that doesn't bode well for any political cause. Even Gandhi, who inspired non-violent politics said that he would prefer if people chose violent politics than giving in to fear or cowardice ( https://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm ). Moreover, politics on internet is even more fraught as even foreign powers can hide behind anonymity to interfere in the politics of other nations.

The claim I was responding to is, "In a democracy, there is no reason to hide behind anonymity while fighting for a just cause."

What I'm saying is that there absolutely are reasons.

This is also not a binary proposition. In a group of activists you can have some people working anonymously and some people working out in the open.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com