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


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.
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.
Please
to post comments
I think it's kind of nice of them to broadcast their next target for control.
"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.
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.
Plus, if the cops think you know too much, a gun might decide to fire itself.
STOP TWEETSISTING.
... WIN!
That generated a spit take. I thank you. My car's interior, however, does not.
It'll be great when the cops can turn off your cell phone whenever they want.
"but then it can't be stolen! just because i support these kinds of laws doesn't mean i approve of police brutality"
+1 mandatory "Anti-Theft" feature.
"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."
"That could allow an offender to escape, or possibly even cost an officer their life."
One can hope.
sarc....
Just ignore him.
If it happens, it will be an isolate incident.
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?
To be fair, all those no-knock raids on the wrong houses seem to surprise people.
The cops are just trying to do it more often to desensitize us. For our own good.
I mean, as long as you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be an issue.
It's not an issue anyway. It's all for the children.
No, the flash bang grenades are all for the children.
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.
And still get shot.
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.
"Door is open!!! He must have a trap waiting!!!"
*fires M203 rounds into house*
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.
I would spread roofing nails around every entrance to my house.
You'd be surprised how little attention people pay to their surroundings. You can absolutely sneak up on someone in an armored vehicle.
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.
And when does the Supreme Court uphold it after the local legislature loses two appeals on First Amendment grounds?
"or possibly even cost an officer their life."
"THEIR?!?!?" Grammatical error. CAPITAL grammatical error!
They are Borg.
"THEIR?!?!?" Grammatical error. CAPITAL grammatical error!
Not to be sarc-y, but how is is wrong?
It's wrong because is a disagreement in number. You can write "cost officers their lives" or "cost an officer his or her life".
*it is a disagreement
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*
It's a plural possessive. Like "their social contract"
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.
I still favor some forms of prohibition.
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.
"cost an officer its life"?
Officers have life?
should be "his" or more modernly, "his or her"
Unless it's the NY Times and the writer is a woman, in which case it is "she."
Techincally it should be "his or her life." But grammatical norms are adapting to accommodate their as a perfectly cromulent alternative.
I think this comment embiggins us all.
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.
You are anathema; I consign you to the place where people declared anathema go. The anathemedy?
Anathemepark.
No, it's the anathemanasium.
the anathacary?
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.
Pronounced "anna-theeema."
Anaheim?
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.
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.
Fine. Go and make less sense in your strange, commie pidgin.
The Queen can take her English and stuff it up her pie hole.
I didn't mean that Queen.
He meant Freddie Mercury. And the English he's referring to is the spin on Freddie's balls.
Also wrong. And now I'm not telling you.
"'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech." -- Hamlet
"xer life"
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.
Ha!
PS - Your English teacher was also misleading you about split infinitives and 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.
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.
Yes, this is my position as well. Fools don't know which "rules" are okay to violate. Let us mock them.
The people want the fall of the regime.
"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.
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.
Do we know if the cops actually had anything to do with that?
Circumstantial yes.
But I think it is a safe assumption.
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.
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.
I may be getting old, but I still can't deal with people using "tweet" as a non-bird-related verb.
I agree, and I ain't getting old just yet.
If 40 is the new 30 then why is 50 the new geezer?
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.
Yeah Tony, I am looking at you.
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.
The real problem is that one seems to lead to the other. Otherwise, I agree completely.
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.
Not gonna happen Nancy. You wanna know why?
Because...Fuck You, That's Why.
I look forward to someone in Seattle starting the "TweetFree" campaign in response.
Sounds like sopme pretty serious business.
http://www.AnonWays.tk