Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Social Media

Quick Note to Cops About Twitter: You Don't Control It, Shouldn't Try

Ed Krayewski | 8.14.2014 3:14 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | KARG Argus Radio
(KARG Argus Radio)
Cops in Ferguson enter a residential neighborhood
KARG Argus Radio

Nine police agencies in Washington, including the Seattle Police Department and the Washington State Police, launched a campaign earlier this summer called "TweetSmart" to encourage social media users not share information about police operations, like photos, that could compromise security. The message from the State Patrol Chief: "Please don't tweet about the movements of responding police officers, or post pictures. Sooner or later we'll have an emergency where the suspect is watching social media. That could allow an offender to escape, or possibly even cost an officer their life."

The Associated Press talked to social media experts:

A social media expert at the International Association of Chiefs of Police said she's unaware of similar awareness campaigns elsewhere but the problem that prompted the outreach is growing.

"All members of the public may not understand the implications of tweeting out a picture of SWAT team activity," said Nancy Korb, who oversees the Alexandria, Virginia, organization's Center for Social Media.

"It's a real safety issue, not only for officers but anyone in the vicinity," Korb said.

Korb said she is not aware of any social media post that has led to the injury of a police officer, but she said there have been a few close calls. Other times, tweets have interfered with investigations.

The real world is a dynamic place. Police work means having to deal with that, not running campaigns encouraging residents not to exercise their First Amendment rights. Perhaps given the way anti-gun activists and politicians have used the "advanced tech" non-argument to whittle down the Second Amendment, some cops think they can do the same with the First. Elizabeth Nolan Brown's explanation of why Twitter, and the Internet, is not a safe space, applies to police too. The technologies change, but the basic tension between liberty and the pursuit of security is the same. So is the Constitution. Cops have no business campaigning, explaining, or otherwise suggesting or directing Americans (or non-Americans) on how to exercise free speech. 

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Chicago Teachers Union Boss Blasts the 1%, Owns 3 Houses and Makes $200K

Ed Krayewski is a former associate editor at Reason.

Social MediaPoliceFree SpeechTechnology
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (87)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    I think it's kind of nice of them to broadcast their next target for control.

  2. Hugh Akston   11 years ago

    "It's a real safety issue, not only for officers but anyone in the vicinity," Korb said.

    If I didn't absolutely know better, I would almost be tempted to read that as a threat.

    1. Florida Man   11 years ago

      Well the flash from a camera phone could look like a muzzle flash so it stands to reason you could draw panic fire. Good safety PSA if you ask me.

      1. Brian D   11 years ago

        Plus, if the cops think you know too much, a gun might decide to fire itself.

  3. JW   11 years ago

    STOP TWEETSISTING.

    1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

      ... WIN!

    2. Kure'i   11 years ago

      That generated a spit take. I thank you. My car's interior, however, does not.

  4. Citizen Nothing   11 years ago

    It'll be great when the cops can turn off your cell phone whenever they want.

    1. Ed   11 years ago

      "but then it can't be stolen! just because i support these kinds of laws doesn't mean i approve of police brutality"

    2. Dances-with-Trolls   11 years ago

      +1 mandatory "Anti-Theft" feature.

  5. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

    "Dum de dum, here I am, a serial killer, plotting my next murder...hmmm, there's a tweet exposing police abuse...well, that really helps my in my killing spree."

  6. sarcasmic   11 years ago

    "That could allow an offender to escape, or possibly even cost an officer their life."

    One can hope.

    1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

      sarc....

      1. The Tone Police   11 years ago

        Just ignore him.

    2. Brendan   11 years ago

      If it happens, it will be an isolate incident.

  7. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

    I'm curious: do they really think they are going sneak up on anybody in their armored cars, so that people tweeting about them is going to tip off their target?

    1. Ted S.   11 years ago

      To be fair, all those no-knock raids on the wrong houses seem to surprise people.

      1. some guy   11 years ago

        The cops are just trying to do it more often to desensitize us. For our own good.

        1. Toki Wartooth   11 years ago

          I mean, as long as you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be an issue.

          1. Kure'i   11 years ago

            It's not an issue anyway. It's all for the children.

            1. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

              No, the flash bang grenades are all for the children.

      2. thom   11 years ago

        If I read on social media the the police were going to conduct a no-knock raid on my house, I would crate my dog, hold up my hands, and go outside to peacefully surrender.

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          And still get shot.

          1. thom   11 years ago

            Probably, but at least my dog would be ok, and I or my family would be in a better position to collect a settlement later. I'd leave my front door open too, so they wouldn't have to kick it in.

            1. Swiss Servator, spare a franc?   11 years ago

              "Door is open!!! He must have a trap waiting!!!"
              *fires M203 rounds into house*

          2. Kure'i   11 years ago

            Yep. And you'd be identified on the news as someone "known for posting on antigovernment sites," which would automatically make it not only justifiable, but necessary, for the cops to employ deadly force. Which the cops' own internal investigation would also conclude.

        2. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

          I would spread roofing nails around every entrance to my house.

    2. T   11 years ago

      You'd be surprised how little attention people pay to their surroundings. You can absolutely sneak up on someone in an armored vehicle.

  8. some guy   11 years ago

    So when does the first local legislature add "tweeting police activity" to the definition of "aiding and abetting" or "interfering with an official investigation"? You know one of them will do it eventually.

    1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

      And when does the Supreme Court uphold it after the local legislature loses two appeals on First Amendment grounds?

  9. Libertarian   11 years ago

    "or possibly even cost an officer their life."

    "THEIR?!?!?" Grammatical error. CAPITAL grammatical error!

    1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

      They are Borg.

    2. Ivan Pike   11 years ago

      "THEIR?!?!?" Grammatical error. CAPITAL grammatical error!

      Not to be sarc-y, but how is is wrong?

      1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

        It's wrong because is a disagreement in number. You can write "cost officers their lives" or "cost an officer his or her life".

        1. Heroic Mulatto   11 years ago

          *it is a disagreement

        2. Ivan Pike   11 years ago

          It's wrong because is a disagreement in number.

          I thought maybe that after I read it a couple of times, but just couldn't get it to form in my brain as I was thinking possessive (officer possessing their life).

          *walks off grumbling about English*

          1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

            It's a plural possessive. Like "their social contract"

            1. Ivan Pike   11 years ago

              Singular they is the use of they, or its inflected forms, such as them or their, to refer to a single person or an antecedent that is singular in form.

              1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

                I still favor some forms of prohibition.

            2. Knarf Yenrab!   11 years ago

              Correct in general, but the specific formulation for "social contract" would be singular, e.g., "everyone's social contract."

              Otherwise the social contract would be merely collectively, rather than individually, binding and a person would be free to do as s/he wished. You can imagine the chaos that would ensue.

        3. Brett L   11 years ago

          "cost an officer its life"?

          1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

            Officers have life?

      2. The Tone Police   11 years ago

        should be "his" or more modernly, "his or her"

        1. Libertarian   11 years ago

          Unless it's the NY Times and the writer is a woman, in which case it is "she."

      3. Hugh Akston   11 years ago

        Techincally it should be "his or her life." But grammatical norms are adapting to accommodate their as a perfectly cromulent alternative.

        1. Florida Man   11 years ago

          I think this comment embiggins us all.

        2. Zeb   11 years ago

          Yes, I hate to admit it, and I've done my part to resist it, but I think we are going to have to accept "they" as a singular, gender neutral, personal pronoun.

          1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

            You are anathema; I consign you to the place where people declared anathema go. The anathemedy?

            1. BuSab Agent   11 years ago

              Anathemepark.

            2. T   11 years ago

              No, it's the anathemanasium.

            3. DesigNate   11 years ago

              the anathacary?

            4. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

              People declared anathema don't have to go anywhere; they just can't take communion anymore.

              So in a sense, I've already declared myself anathema.

              1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                Pronounced "anna-theeema."

            5. Kure'i   11 years ago

              Anaheim?

        3. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

          It can be "his," which is still technically or even techincally the neuter pronoun.

          "Their" in such contexts is inaccurate, confusing, and an abomination against the Queen and her English.

          1. Hugh Akston   11 years ago

            It still surprises me ProLib that despite all your years as a lawyer that you have yet to learn that rules are fucking bullshit. Especially when it comes to something as mutable as language.

            1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

              Fine. Go and make less sense in your strange, commie pidgin.

          2. Lord Humungus   11 years ago

            The Queen can take her English and stuff it up her pie hole.

            1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

              I didn't mean that Queen.

              1. Hugh Akston   11 years ago

                He meant Freddie Mercury. And the English he's referring to is the spin on Freddie's balls.

                1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

                  Also wrong. And now I'm not telling you.

          3. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

            "'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech." -- Hamlet

        4. seguin   11 years ago

          "xer life"

    3. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

      It should be noted that the singular "they" has been a feature of English since the 14th century, whereas the generic "he" only appeared in the 19th century. So far from being an error, this is merely a return to the historical norm after a century of prudish Victorian hogwash.

      1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

        Ha!

        1. Stormy Dragon   11 years ago

          PS - Your English teacher was also misleading you about split infinitives and ending sentences with a preposition.

          1. Jordan   11 years ago

            ending sentences with a preposition

            YEEEESSSSS. We really need to spread the word on that one.

            Also, if a sentence ends with a quote, fuck putting the period inside of the quotation marks.

          2. Citizen Nothing   11 years ago

            There's nothing wrong with split infinitives and prepositions ending sentences. But using a singular verb with "their" IS an abomination.
            If you can't bring yourself to write "his or her" then recast the sentence.
            Why? FYTW.

            1. Pro Libertate   11 years ago

              Yes, this is my position as well. Fools don't know which "rules" are okay to violate. Let us mock them.

  10. nuffcedmcgreevey   11 years ago

    The people want the fall of the regime.

  11. F. Stupidity, Jr.   11 years ago

    "Please don't tweet about the movements of responding police officers, or post pictures. Sooner or later we'll have an emergency where the suspect is watching social media. That could allow an offender to escape, or possibly even cost an officer their life."

    1) Because more traditional media could never have the same effect

    2) The problem here isn't "loss of life" - it's the loss of an officer's life. They aren't even paying lip service to civilian casualties.

  12. Corning   11 years ago

    Quick Note to Cops About Twitter: You Don't Control It, Shouldn't Try

    Umm twitter shut down an anon twitter account that released what it said was the name of the cop who shot that kid in Ferguson.

    Seems to me cops have pretty good control over twitter.

    1. Jordan   11 years ago

      Do we know if the cops actually had anything to do with that?

      1. Corning   11 years ago

        Circumstantial yes.

        But I think it is a safe assumption.

  13. Spartacus   11 years ago

    It's a good thing that nobody has figured out how to listen in on police radio broadcasts or we would have had dead officers everywhere.

    1. Brendan   11 years ago

      They're spending lots of money to encrypt their channels/talkgroups when they move to new systems on the grounds that there are internet streaming sites that stream dispatch (but not tactical, investigations, talk-around, car-to-car, etc.) channels.

      They just want to be able to do what they do without anyone hearing about it.

  14. Tony   11 years ago

    I may be getting old, but I still can't deal with people using "tweet" as a non-bird-related verb.

    1. See Double You   11 years ago

      I agree, and I ain't getting old just yet.

      1. Libertarian   11 years ago

        If 40 is the new 30 then why is 50 the new geezer?

  15. Suthenboy   11 years ago

    Shorter State Patrol Chief: "We want to control what people say so that we can operate in secret."

    Nice.

    Notice that most of the worst practices of all of the worst tyrannical regimes were used for utilitarian purposes, for the greater good, for more efficient governance. Fuck these people. There is no excuse for this kind of ignorance and evil.

    1. Suthenboy   11 years ago

      Yeah Tony, I am looking at you.

  16. Sigivald   11 years ago

    Cops have no business campaigning, explaining, or otherwise suggesting or directing Americans (or non-Americans) on how to exercise free speech.

    Cops have no business telling people what they can and can't do with their figurative mouths.

    Asking people nicely not to broadcast the details of a search or a standoff resolution?

    With the perfectly reasonable and accurate explanation that "the guy we're after might be reading Twitter"?

    I don't see any problem - or that it's not "their business" to ask nicely that people please not do that, in general.

    It's when they start arresting or harassing people for not listening to the pretty-please that there's a problem.

    1. antisocial-ist   11 years ago

      The real problem is that one seems to lead to the other. Otherwise, I agree completely.

    2. Libertarian   11 years ago

      You're right. It also raises my hackles whenever I hear a politician speak directly to a citizen (even if that citizen is Rush Limbaugh). There is something unseemly in an elected official telling a private citizen that he or she is wrong about something. Discuss the issue if you have to, but don't direct ultimatums to individuals.

  17. Brendan   11 years ago

    Not gonna happen Nancy. You wanna know why?

    Because...Fuck You, That's Why.

  18. JParker   11 years ago

    I look forward to someone in Seattle starting the "TweetFree" campaign in response.

  19. userve32   11 years ago

    Sounds like sopme pretty serious business.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

A Car Hit and Killed Their 7-Year-Old Son. Now They're Being Charged for Letting Him Walk to the Store.

Lenore Skenazy | 6.4.2025 1:30 PM

Everything Got Worse During COVID

Christian Britschgi | 6.4.2025 1:15 PM

Mountainhead Is a Shallow Satire of Tech Billionaires

Peter Suderman | 6.4.2025 1:05 PM

New Ruling Moves Oregon Closer to Legal In-Home Psilocybin Use

Autumn Billings | 6.4.2025 11:40 AM

A First Amendment Right To Preach Orgasm?

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.4.2025 11:25 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!