.

Cops, Threats & Eccentricities

Ok, honestly, isn't it about time we all "chip-up" to make citizen/police encounters safer for everyone involved?

Can anyone see a day when citizens will have updatable microchip IDs implanted into them, complete with criminal and medical records?

Carrying an ID card embedded with such a chip is the possible bridge technology.  "Chipped" cards, and cheap smart phones equipped with the same feature, may eventually converge and become the Universal and Mandatory ID.

Of course, not every citizen may wish to, or be capable of, carrying their ID consistently.  The incorrigible, forgetful and incapable could still be implanted physically as we do now with our pets.

Regardless, a cop's job would be easier:  scan the erratic suspect from a distance and proceed with tactics suited to their profile.

Civil liberties?  If current trends hold, citizens may not even care.  We might even demand it.

And I doubt PDs would oppose.

 

I posted the above as a comment to the Patch piece, Kelly Thomas: Schizophrenic and on the Street, about a year ago.  Kelly Thomas was beaten to death by Fullerton police officers when he failed to follow officers' commands while being detained, searched and arrested.  His father had been a Deputy to the OC Sheriff's Dept.

Full video w/subtitles

Transcript of video presented in court

 

Two years ago this coming December, an extremely intoxicated Doug Zerby was shot and killed by Long Beach police officers in a Belmont Shore residential courtyard.  Doug was blind drunk, sitting on a friend's landing, fiddling with a hose nozzle that a 911 caller (and officers) mistook for a gun.

Editor Nancy Wride and the BelmontShore-Naples Patch covered the story aggressively from the get-go and commentary onsite was vigorous and extensive:

Police Chief: Autopsy Shows Doug Zerby's Arms Outstretched When Officers Fatally Shot Him

DA Rules Zerby Shooting by LB Police Justified

 

A little over a week ago, David Jordan, a twenty-year-old autistic man with the mental capacity of an eight-year-old, was shot to death in his home by Long Beach police officers while agitated and brandishing a knife.

Family of Slain Autistic College Student: We Called for an Ambulance Not Police

In its wake, retired LBPD Sgt John B. Greet wrote an interesting Patch essay titled, Officer Involved Shootings: Tragic Even When Justified.

 

Ok, honestly, isn't it about time we all "chip-up," enable a force-multiplying technology, one of a type the Chief said will become necessary as budgetary constraints reduce the cop-to-citizen ratio?

Well, not you, of course (you're obviously not the problem) but the demonstrably anti-social, odd, addled, mentally ill or eccentric at least?

Will that be all right?

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

John B. Greet September 21, 2012 at 02:09 AM
"Ok, honestly, isn't it about time we all "chip-up," enable a force-multiplying technology, one of a type the Chief said will become necessary as budgetary constraints reduce the cop-to-citizen ratio?" Er....I don't know that it is entirely accurate to say that implanted microchip I.D's is of "the same type" of force-multiplying technology that Chief McDonnell was inferring when he was introducing the LBCOP system to the public. I imagine *some* police personnel (of various ranks) might like the idea. Not unlike other folks, some cops just love any new gadget, gizmo, or technology, whether it truly proves to aid them in their efforts or not. Thanks for the mention, Pan! : )
Panglonymous September 21, 2012 at 02:52 PM
De nada, John. Is it reasonable to consider a system of blanket video surveillance as an unreasonable search, a violation of a citizen's right to be secure in their person?
Watts September 21, 2012 at 03:50 PM
Are you for real? The day that I am being asked by my government to have my ID implanted with a microchip is the day that I move to the jungles of Costa Rica, never to return. Please tell me that you wrote this as a joke. I fear that you are serious, because of the statements at the beginning from your previous post.
John B. Greet September 21, 2012 at 04:57 PM
"Is it reasonable to consider a system of blanket video surveillance as an unreasonable search, a violation of a citizen's right to be secure in their person?" I don't think so, because cameras in public areas can only monitor people in plain view, which is all law enforcement personnel do and their doing so is not considered either an unreasonable search or a violation of a citizen's right to be secure in their person. Conversely, cameras in private property would require the voluntary consent of those being monitored. The signs advertising the existence of the camera system put the public on clear notice of the system, who is using it, and why. A person so informed can then make an informed and voluntary choice to either enter the property under those circumstances, or to not.
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Well said, John. But isn't a constant and complete surveillance inhumane when practiced by humans upon other humans? Only God should have the right to Omnipresence & Omniscience, no? When He violates us, it is for some constructive purpose. Not to mention His methods are fairly discreet. Humans violating other humans are totally ham-fisted. They may coo, "This is for your own good," but who the heck believes that? Protective buggery? Bah.
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Watts, I have decided to embrace radical transparency as an inevitability. Top tech CEOs tell me (well, not personally) to "get over it." Privacy, that is. They tell me it is "already gone," so what would I be clinging to exactly: some creepy anachronistic phantom? Nah, chip-me, baby, let's ride this sucker down...
Nancy Wride (Editor) September 22, 2012 at 12:59 AM
How are you embracing radical transparency with a name like Panglonymous, Pan? :D
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 01:32 AM
It is somewhat beyond my understanding as well. Paradox?
John B. Greet September 22, 2012 at 01:37 AM
"But isn't a constant and complete surveillance inhumane when practiced by humans upon other humans?" I haven't read anything that indicates that the video surveillance related to LBCOP is either constant or complete. "Only God should have the right to Omnipresence & Omniscience, no?" Yes. In my view only God *can* be either one! So I don;t fret much about camera systems that spend most of their time being recorded, rather than actually monitored by live bodies. "Humans violating other humans are totally ham-fisted." It surely is, Pan, but I disagree that LBCOP represents any sort of violation.
tiny September 22, 2012 at 04:23 AM
I ain't taking no chip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kTPOpuA_f8&feature=related
Watts September 22, 2012 at 06:01 AM
Without question, the best post that I have yet to see on Patch.
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 03:41 PM
I donno, John. I'm guessing data will be monitored constantly by multiple algorithms analyzing for meaningful patterns. Unattended until necessary, then BEEP! It's funny, a while back I called LBPD about some damage done to our car (malicious mischief to the exterior, nothing stolen, residential street) and it was the first time an officer had asked me, "Do you have video?" He seemed enthused at the possibility that I might, and a bit crestfallen when I told him I hadn't.) A system originally intended to increase the security of persons and property (as it inevitably grows in size and analytical sophistication) could in times of legitimate protest and/or civil unrest easily be repurposed to facilitate "lockdown." No?
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Kind words, Watts, thanks.
Panglonymous September 22, 2012 at 03:46 PM
Take the chip, tiny. Take. the. chip.
John B. Greet September 22, 2012 at 07:04 PM
My bottom line, Pan: If I am in public, I really don't care who is watching or how. If I am entering private property, and the owner has a surveillance system that cooperates with police, if I feel unfomfortable with that, I can choose to not enter.
Nancy Wride (Editor) September 22, 2012 at 08:31 PM
I'll take the chip but pass on constant video surveillance everywhere we go. In public places, it is invisible but, I think, invasive. I guess I am alone in also not wanting to hook up whatever video surveillance system I have to public agencies.
John B. Greet September 22, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Having once been one of the watchers, Nancy, I can all but assure that SOMEone is almost always watching. : )
Watts September 22, 2012 at 11:03 PM
I am pretty sure that you realize that I was referring to Nancy's astute observation of the hypocrisy (or at the very least a lack of logical continuity) between stating that you "embrace radical transparency," while using a fake user name on this site. And I know that I don't use my real name, but I also couldn't be further away in my own positions from "embracing radical transparency."
Nancy Wride (Editor) September 22, 2012 at 11:45 PM
See? Has nobody ever been in high school and repaired to an empty stretch of beach to be alone with your thoughts, or just feel left alone? It's close, in daylight probably fairly safe.....
Panglonymous September 23, 2012 at 01:18 AM
Lol, no I didn't. Easy come, easy go... :-)
Panglonymous September 23, 2012 at 01:20 AM
That's pretty girly, Nancy. Real men go surfing, or sailing, or diving, or fishing. Static and alone on the beach? They may as well be dead.
Panglonymous September 23, 2012 at 01:22 AM
John! You cad!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something