Police Abuse

Don't Want Nude Selfies Stolen? Don't Let Cops See Your Phone

|

cobrasick/Flickr

What do California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers and nasty Internet trolls have in common? Like the hackers who stole and released nude celebrity pics from iCloud, these Cali cops think they have a right to view private images off women's phones and the law be damned. A team of CHP officers is now under investigation for a years-long "game" in which they stole and traded private photos from the phones of women they arrested. 

None of the officers have been charged so far, but last week CHP Officer Sean Harrington, 35, confessed to stealing nude photos of a woman he arrested on DUI charges and admitted that he and other CHP officers have been swapping such images for years. According to the Contra Costa Times, the practice "stretches from (CHP's) Los Angeles office" to Harrington's office up in Dublin, California, near San Francisco. From the Times

The five-year CHP veteran called it a "game" among officers, according to an Oct. 14 search warrant affidavit. Harrington told investigators he had done the same thing to female arrestees a "half dozen times in the last several years," according to the court records, which included leering text messages between Harrington and his Dublin CHP colleague, Officer Robert Hazelwood.

(…) In the search warrant affidavit, senior Contra Costa district attorney inspector Darryl Holcombe wrote that he found probable cause to show both CHP officers Harrington and Hazelwood and others engaged in a "scheme to unlawfully access the cell phone of female arrestees by intentionally gaining access to their cell phone and without their knowledge, stealing and retaining nude or partially clothed photographs of them." That behavior constitutes felony computer theft, the affidavit said.

Not only did the cops illegally access women's photos, they then proceeded to be judgmental dicks about them. Here's a sample text conversation between Harrington and Hazelwood: 

Contra Costa Times

Luckily, Officer Harrington's intelligence is also "like a 5 or 6 at best": the ruse was discovered when the last woman whose photos he stole noticed that the photos had been sent to an unknown number. Harrington had deleted evidence they had been sent from the woman's iPhone, but the phone was synced to her iPad as well. 

CHP is of course trying to paint the situation as an isolated incident, but Rick Madsen, the lawyer representing the woman who discovered the activity, balked at this. "This particular instance was only discovered by my client by chance—and it's a reasonable speculation to imagine how often it has occurred undetected," Madsen said a statement. "Who knows how many officers have participated in this so-called 'game,' or how many more women have been victimized?"

As SearchSecurity editor Rob Wright tweeted this morning, yet another reason for phone encryption

NEXT: If Sikh Kids Can Bring Knives to School, Why Can't Everyone Else?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have an even better idea: Don’t take ’em, idjit!

    1. This is legitimate and unequivocal victim-blaming. These weren’t stored on the cloud, they weren’t on an unprotected phone, and they weren’t leaked by some d-list celebrity wanting exposure (heh), this was violation of private property by violent gun-toting sociopaths.

      1. All of which is true, but doesn’t refute Sevo in any way.

        1. Don’t want to get assaulted/stolen from/in some way abused by cops? Don’t walk on roads! Don’t drive! Don’t own a phone! Don’t go in public! Don’t answer your door! Don’t not answer your door!

          1. ENB must have something to hide.

            1. Who knows? She could take her showers in the nude. It’s called privacy and cops have no right to peek in the windows and take pictures, just like they have no right to peek in her phone.

              I pity those who think they have nothing to hide as they are always first to fall.

              As the grand inquisitor said,
              “Give me six sentences by the most honest man in the country, and I’ll find a reason to hang to hang him by dawn.

          2. You’re using a device which by it’s very nature, is designed to be networked to other devices.

            Calling it “unprotected” is overstating it but quite some margin.

            But thank you for the stupid fucking analogies, your hysterical trolling has added much to the subject.

            1. *understating

            2. I’m the one who called it “unprotected.” But it wasn’t unprotected, it required a password. And the password was extorted from the victim by threat of force. In this case, the victim did nothing wrong except be in a state in which a perverted sociopath had access to the sort of unaccountable power that allowed him to coerce her phone’s password from her and steal her photos, but that situation is pretty much unavoidable in this country. And your post is completely incoherent, so I’m only making a guess at what bullshit you were trying to spout.

              1. What kind of fucking idiot actually think their phone is EVER protected?

                Right, you.

                1. No, but I would still be understandably upset if someone put a gun to my face and demanded my phone’s password so they could steal all of the artistically-arranged photos of my dong.

                  1. At which point the rest of us telling you to keep them in an ACTUALLY SECURE place instead of a phone will be prescient.

                    Thanks, I appreciate it when you make my point for me.

                2. So a woman walking down the road should wear an unobtainum chastity belt because everyone knows clothes are very protective?

                  Keerist in a chimney I hate dicks like you. Victim blaming, statist apologists of the worst sort.

              2. But it wasn’t unprotected, it required a password.

                A password has about zero impact on a devices’ “protection.”

                1. How can a password have zero impact on a devices protection? Just because a lock can be broken (or hacked) doesn’t mean it doesn’t offer some protection.

                  My front door could probably be busted through by a strong guy putting enough force into it, but it would be wrong, in my opinion, to say it offers no protection.

                  Did the officers hack the phone or did they coerce her to providing her password/unlocking her phone?

                  1. How can a password have zero impact on a devices protection? Just because a lock can be broken (or hacked) doesn’t mean it doesn’t offer some protection.

                    And a password doesn’t offer any protection. It takes literally zero effort to gain access to your phone, password or not.

                    1. “Literally.” That word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.

                2. So do clothes. Fuck off, statist apologist.

          3. Exactly. And this kind of attitude destroys anyone who doesn’t fit a given officer’s mental picture of an upstanding citizen. It’s a license for abuse against the (ugh) unprivileged.

            1. “And this kind of attitude destroys anyone who doesn’t fit a given officer’s mental picture of an upstanding citizen.”

              She didn’t get arrested because she had snatch pics on her phone, that doesn’t even fucking make sense.

              It was theft. Of property. That she stupidly put in a place where it wasn’t secure. That’s all. At least some of that is on her.

              1. It was secure.

                1. Then how’d he get them?

                  Right. It’s a phone. It’s NOT secure.

                  But please, another “yes-huh” might make the fundamental concept of what a phone is change somehow so go for it.

                  1. It was password-protected. If a guy holds a gun to your head in your house and tells you to open your safe, you are going to open your fucking safe. And you would probably not give too much credence to some dipshit whose first comment was “well you should’ve had a secret decoy safe! It’s your own fault, really. You were pretty much asking for it!”

                    1. “It was password-protected. ”

                      But not encrypted, and still networked.

                      So, not secure. And that password can be changed or reset remotely, so VERY not secure.

                      “And you would probably not”

                      Keep the assumptions to yourself.

                    2. Right, because you would totally be ok with that. “You’re right, one safe just isn’t enough. Maybe double decoys and then the real safe in a different house. But then I need a decoy for that house too. Shit…”

                    3. Why would you provide such a blatant false equivalence?

                      1: There’s nothing inherently damaging about my private photos suddenly becoming not private.

                      2: There’s exactly nothing similar about pictures on a phone and valuables in a safe.

                    4. “1: There’s nothing inherently damaging about my private photos suddenly becoming not private.”

                      To YOU. You’re not this girl, so ” your point fails there.

                    5. To YOU. You’re not this girl, so ” your point fails there.

                      Please show how this woman was harmed by having her photos become public.

                    6. While I agree with your premises, you’re the one claiming “There’s nothing inherently damaging about my private photos suddenly becoming not private.” so the onus of proof is on you.

                      I’d say it’s generally true, to something like 95% of the population, but not absolute.

                    7. I’d say it’s generally true, to something like 95% of the population, but not absolute.

                      Since it’s impossible to prove a negative, I’d say the burden is on you were you to disagree.

                      But then again, I’m not taking pics of me raping & murdering babies.

                    8. “, I’d say the burden is on you were you to disagree.”

                      And you’d be wrong since it was your claim.

                    9. So was I wrong to request any evidence that physical harm befell this woman by her photos becoming semi-public? Or were her feelings just hurt?

                    10. No, in fact I’d probably agree with you. I just wouldn’t state is as an absolute.

                    11. Potentially a valid criticism. I can’t imagine any situation where a photo would cause me harm, and I’m not sure if any of the obvious candidates for such a photo (photo of murder/etc) would qualify as causing me harm since such a photo would be of me causing harm.

                    12. Or, were you asking me to prove that you’re not this girl?

                    13. Or, were you asking me to prove that you’re not this girl?

                      I mean, I can ask you that, if that’s what you wanna do…

                    14. I was just trying to clarify what part of your claim you wanted me to prove/disprove.

                    15. They don’t have to be equivalent. The problem is the taking by force and deceit.

                    16. They don’t have to be equivalent. The problem is the taking by force and deceit.

                      The real problem is that people in power abuse power, something that seems to be lost here. It doesn’t matter so much what the specific Crime of the Day (cotd) is so much as police are criminals.

                    17. There is something inherently wrong with police being able to access something that you would not, under non-coerced circumstances, choose to give them access to.

                    18. ” If a guy holds a gun to your head in your house and tells you to open your safe, you are going to open your fucking safe. ”

                      And by the way, no, I didn’t. They beat me, broke my skull, and destroyed my knee forever, but no, I didn’t open the safe.

                      So, no you fucking asshole, don’t ever presume to tell me what I’d do.

                    19. Ok. Even if your self-adulating fantasy were true, it wouldn’t make you right. This was extortion, theft under color of law using the threat of violence. Extorted cooperation is not the same thing as consent.

                    20. “Ok. Even if your self-adulating fantasy were true, ”

                      I hope you get what I got.

                      We’re done now, you’re still too fucking stupid to understanbd I never supported the cops in any way, and that I think there’s plenty of blame to go around.

                      Now, I sincerely hope you get robbed like I did.

                    21. Since women are nude under their clothes, and the clothes aren’t absolutely secure, why can’t cops order them to strip so they can take photos. Solves the problem of hot chicks that don’t carry a cell phone.
                      These are sick people who should not have the power of life and death over anyone.

                  2. Send me your address. Just want to take a quick look and see how easy it would be to get in. Probably not protected very well.

              2. So victims are partially responsible for being raped because clothes aren’t very secure protection?

                Fuck off, statist apologist.

          4. Because dick pics are like walking.

          5. If you don’t want naked pictures to fall into the wrong hands, don’t take them.

            What are you hiding ENB?

            *Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?*

            1. “If you don’t want naked pictures to fall into the wrong hands, don’t take them.”

              Or at least don’t put them on your unsecured mobile device and carry them everywhere with you. You know, put them someplace actually safe. Like a safe.

              1. If someone said that’s what you had to do to keep the police from stealing your handguns, how would you feel about it?

                Yeah, yeah, information security, know your rights, but those are side issues. The pigs were threatening women, explicitly or implicitly, and stealing naked pictures of them, and they were doing this systematically.

                1. “If someone said that’s what you had to do to keep the police from stealing your handguns, how would you feel about it?”

                  I’d ask them why they’re so fucking stupid that they think snatch pics are analogous to guns.

                  1. They are personal property. Which is analogous. Stop trying to defend kneejerk stupidity and actually think.

                2. If someone said that’s what you had to do to keep the police from stealing your handguns, how would you feel about it?

                  Right. Because handguns can be copied and exchanged like digital pictures. Great analogy!

            2. If you don’t want to be exposed to unique forms of police abuse, don’t exercise any sexual liberty?

              Fuck, I thought you were some kind of libertarian.

              1. Naked pics that never existed cannot be disseminated.

                I’m not suggesting there should be a law against taking naked selfies.

                I’m just saying it is not wise.

                1. You are proposing that people never take nude selfies, even if they store them on a secure device, to protect themselves from hackers and the police. It’s as though you’re saying the issue is people taking the photos and not the illegitimate use of force in stealing the photos.

                  I’m not concerned at all about people finding out I’m naked under these clothes. I’ve made good money online proving it. But this is coming close to “I didn’t think a girl like that could be raped” territory. The choice should not be to deprive yourself of your freedoms before someone else does.

                  1. “You are proposing that people never take nude selfies, even if they store them on a secure device, to protect themselves from hackers and the police. It’s as though you’re saying the issue is people taking the photos and not the illegitimate use of force in stealing the photos.”

                    To be clear, I am definitely NOT saying that, I realize you weren’t talking to me.

                    I’m saying a phone doesn’t meet the criteria of secure device EVER.

                    “But this is coming close to “I didn’t think a girl like that could be raped” territory.”

                    That’s just fucking stupid.

                    “The choice should not be to deprive yourself of your freedoms before someone else does”

                    Who’s depriving anyone of anything? No one is saying make them illegal asshole.

                  2. You are proposing that people never take nude selfies…

                    Um, no. That’s not what I said. But you sure can whoop a straw man’s ass!

                2. So women should have their vaginas surgically closed to prevent rape.

                  Fuck off, statist apologist.

              2. This has fuckall to do with liberty, twat, it’s about realizing that phones are not secure.

                What you think I’m against snatch pics? Don’t be even more stupid.

                1. Most houses are not secure either.

      2. These weren’t stored on the cloud,

        They may very well have been in the cloud:

        Harrington had deleted evidence they had been sent from the woman’s iPhone, but the phone was synced to her iPad as well.

      3. I agree: it’s victim blaming and it is legitimate.

        Don’t store nude photos of yourself on your phone. Far more likely than a cop stealing the phone is you losing it.

    2. I don’t fucking want to live in a world with no nude selfies, and neither does any other reasonable person.

      1. And if you take nude selfies, neither the police nor hackers nor anyone else gets to make you share them with the rest of the class.

        Imagine applying this to any other form of personal information. It’s a quarter level removed from “if you don’t want nude pictures of you taken, don’t fly” or “if you don’t want your home raided, don’t smoke weed.”

        1. “If you don’t want your home raided, don’t live in the same town as someone who has smoked weed before.”

          1. Because that’s totally the same as keeping your private property in an insecure place.

            God how fucking stupid are you?

            1. A lot less stupid than you. I’m not the one excusing police abuse because of insufficient security.

              1. “I’m not the one excusing police abuse ”

                Who did that asshole? Not me. Yo won’t see one place where i let the cops off.

                Now you’re just straight lying and stupid.

            2. This from the person that is somehow using Tony/PB logic without blaming Bush.

              This isn’t hard. The police officer had no probable cause to search the phone for the crimes that the individuals were being detained for. That’s why they are being charged with felony theft. Regardless of the wisdom of having naked pictures on your phone an individual should have no expectation of a law enforcement officer illegally searching the phone and then emailing provocative pictures to a friend.

              Your reasoning justifies my robbing you if you flash money. Try not to be an absolute fuck.

              1. “This isn’t hard. The police officer had no probable cause to search the phone for the crimes that the individuals were being detained for. That’s why they are being charged with felony theft. Regardless of the wisdom of having naked pictures on your phone an individual should have no expectation of a law enforcement officer illegally searching the phone and then emailing provocative pictures to a friend.”

                I agree. Post where I haven’t.

                Oh right, you don’t even know what the fuck is going on, so die in a grease fire now troll.

                1. “Die in a grease fire.”

                  I guess I could, and my family could blame whoever left a bunch of grease unsecured.

                  Your still an ignorant cunt. If you stepped away from fisting yourself for a minute you would see that your argument means that a police officer could search your asshole during a traffic top because it’s unsecure.

              2. Regardless of the wisdom of having naked pictures on your phone an individual should have no expectation of a law enforcement officer illegally searching the phone and then emailing provocative pictures to a friend.

                Not so. An individual should have every expectation of a cop doing something illegal, like searching their phone or person without consent, because cops consider themselves to be above the law.

                The part that surprises me is that the cops are actually facing charges.

                I never would have expected that.

                Then again, charged doesn’t mean indicted, indicted doesn’t mean convicted, and convicted doesn’t mean the sentence will be more than a slap on the wrist. If you’re a cop.

                More than likely we’ll hear about this again in a few years when the cops in question are rehired with back pay.

                1. And given a medal for their bravery.

            3. Says the guy who keeps his private property in a house that can be broken into in less time than it took that cop to send those naked pics to his buddies.

  2. And nothing else happened.

    CB

  3. Cue progressive screams of Victim Blaming!

    1. What the fuck are you talking about?

      1. He’s talking about you cunt.

  4. NEEDZ MOAR TRAININGZ!

    How were these guys supposed to know it was wrong to do this?

    1. Oh, I know, that quote was the best.

    2. What do you mean “wrong”? If this saved even one life…even if it DIDN’T, but some policeman lied about it maybe saving a life….or something….

      Then it’s OK. GODDAMNED CRAZY ANARKIST LIBERTARDIANS!

  5. “What does my phone have to do with the speed limit on this road, asshole?”

  6. Who is even a little bit surprised by this?

    1. No one, but if it’s publicized, there is an ever so slight chance that the officer will face some kind of mild negative consequence.

    2. Antonin Scalia?

    3. “Of course I’m dangerous. I’m police. I can do terrible things to people with impunity.”

  7. Pix or it didn’t happen.

    1. excellent! +1 naked photo of SugarFree

      1. I only shoot Vines. You really have to see me in motion.

        1. Better yet

  8. What do you suppose would happen if somebody plastered a cop’s daughter’s (wife’s) nude selfies all over the interwebz?

    1. and nothing else happened?

      That’s the wrong answer, isn’t it…

    2. They would get mistaken for a rabid pit bull during a no-knock raid gone wrong, that’s what.

    3. That’s completely different. One rule for the rulers, another for the ruled.

  9. In this thread we learn once again that ENB is stupid, as she’d be totally cool with dragging a thousand polaroids of her snatch everywhere with her, for no fucking reason whatsoever.

    1. How do you know I don’t have very good reason to drag my 1000+ snatch Polaroids everywhere?

      1. Well, they’d add a -lot- of weight.

      2. I just assumed we were talking about a situation analogous to the one in your story.

        Silly me.

    2. Yeah, carting around a photo album is TOTALLY the same thing as having a password protected phone.

      (Seriously, what level of protection on my phone do I need to have before you say that it matters fuck all if I have pictures of my dong on it?)

      1. I’d ask if it mattered that you have dick pics on your phone, first.

        1. No, no it doesn’t matter if it’s pictures of my dong or of my 200 cats or my daughter at a pumpkin patch.

      2. “Yeah, carting around a photo album is TOTALLY the same thing as having a password protected phone.”

        IT ISN’T! IT TOTALLY ISN’T! GREAT JOB NATER-MATER!

        “(Seriously, what level of protection on my phone do I need to have before you say that it matters fuck all if I have pictures of my dong on it?)”

        On a networked device? Well, way more than a fucking password. I doubt I’d ever call is secure frankly.

        Do I get to to that? Decide something isn’t secure enough because of my knowledge on the subject, while you decide the opposite because of your knowledge?

        And then, when you’re complaining your dick pics got passed around by cops, do I then get to point out that A) having no dick pics would solve that or B) not putting them on your person when you’re in public would solve that?

        DO I NATER-MATER DO I?

        1. What’s it like, going through life a bitter angry little person?

          I mean shit, save the name calling for dunphy, Tony, and shrike for fucks sake.

          1. Yeah, even if he had a coherent point it has been lost to puerile inanity of his commenting prose.

            Go get-um ENB, with your photo album and what not.

  10. So these cops like nakedness? Parade them naked through the streets wearing placards reading I VIOLATE WOMEN’S PRIVACY, PLEASE THROW THINGS AT ME.

    1. adding this to my 2016 platform, except with the entire NSA

    2. I like it. Eye for an eye, motherfuckers

    3. That isn’t particularly cruel relative to other sentences, but it is unusual.

      The only way to squeeze this past the incorporated amendment would be to make nude-placard punishment the norm for abuse of police power. Make it so.

      1. That’s one of those old obsolete amendments written by dead white slaveowners, irrelevant when applied to us serfs, but I suppose it does still apply if we’re talking about government agents.

    4. Nah, it’s totally cool because Belinda thinks it’s all the girls fault for saving photos on an insecure phone. Nothing to see here…

  11. Don’t want to get assaulted/stolen from/in some way abused by cops? Don’t walk on roads! Don’t drive! Don’t own a phone! Don’t go in public! Don’t answer your door! Don’t not answer your door!

    By George, I think she’s got it!

  12. Ok, know I’m probably in the minority here, but the internet is for porn. If you take pics of yourself with a device connected to the internets, someone somewhere at some point in time is going to make those pictures public.

    Granted, the cops are still fuckwads in this scenario, but if you have naked pics of yourself on your phone they’re going to get out there at some point anyways. The cop is just the bad guy -this- time. Next time it’ll be some dipshit at the store you took your phone to because it’s broken. Eventually, you’ll throw it in those phone recycling things and those photos you “deleted” will be recovered and posted at some shit like “recoveredpornselfies.com.”

    1. If you carry cash, it’s going to get stolen at some point. Sure, it might be the cops this time, but if it wasn’t them it would just be someone else. So don’t carry cash. Oh, or credit cards or ID.

      1. Theft is different than copying.

        Information, by its very nature, endeavors to be free. A picture, being nothing more than information, *will* become public given time. Usually a device is destroyed before the requisite amount of time.

        1. Information, by its very nature, endeavors to be free.

          Stop posting this bullshit. It is in no way true. Information sits there like a bump on a log until somebody decides it’s worth sharing. There’s tons of dead tree pubs that will never be digitized and ‘free’ because nobody gives a shit enough to do the work. They will rot unmourned.

          1. It’s available whether you choose to use it or not. Just because you don’t use it doesn’t mean the next guy won’t.

            1. cash is information regarding how much money I have

      2. And really, every woman out there that takes naked pics of herself knows there’s inherent risk in taking those photos. If they are satisfied with the risks vs. rewards, whatever; just know that 99.9% of the time the person responsible for making those pics public can’t be caught.

        1. I’m still not going to subsidize the theft.

          1. I’m still not going to subsidize the theft.

            You don’t really have a choice, do you?

            A conundrum society faces.

            1. This is what Justice Holmes meant when he said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. This, jailing pacifists for handing out anti-draft pamphlets, and forced sterilization of women with Asperger’s.

              1. I mean, come on, do you REALLY want a fourth generation of imbeciles?

      3. WHITE KNIGHT AHOY

    2. Sure, but I don’t consider this about absolute selfie security. This is about theft and abuse of power. There is a relatively tiny chance that my selfies are going to get stolen, and I can live with that. I’m still going to be incredibly pissed when pigs use my tax money to add it to their personal porn stash. They can pay for my nude pics like everyone else.

      1. I agree; it’s blatant abuse of authority, and just a microcosm of how fucked up the situation has become, but there’s absolutely nothing new to be seen here.

        Person in power abuses power, news at 11.

    3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t someone have to, you know, basically break into your phone (hacking or otherwise) to “release” the photos?

      It’s not like the internet just decides to post whatever info you’ve got on your phone while you’re sleeping.

      1. It’s not like the internet just decides to post whatever info you’ve got on your phone while you’re sleeping.

        This is closer to reality than you want to believe.

      2. http://boingboing.net/2013/05/…..s-for.html

        Apple can decrypt iPhones for cops; Google can remotely “reset password” for Android devices

        1. Both of those require someone to physically “do” something, it’s not like it’s a passive thing. Yet at least.

          1. And both companies have recently come out and said they were going to consciously do the exact opposite with their new operating systems.

    4. Exactamundo anon! There’s no way to ensure that a particular picture will not fall into the wrong hands. There will always be internet hackers or people who will snoop on a phone, or, a million other scenarios where your data is not in your control. Unless you’re a total beast, be assured that if you take nude pics, others will make an effort to see and/or distribute them. (yes, of course these cops are total assholes and should be punished)

  13. Wow. There’s a whole lot of stupid out there.

    Digital pictures are not guns or cash. Someone can’t copy your guns and cash, and then spread it around the internet without you being the wiser. To compare selfies getting stolen to guns or cash getting stolen is just dumb.

    Also, suggesting one doesn’t take naked pics of themselves is not to suggest there be a law. That’s just dumb. Doesn’t matter if it’s a cop or an angry ex, if the pics don’t exist then they can’t be copied and distributed to who knows who.

    Now if you do insist on taking such pictures, and you don’t want them to go public, take a few precautions. Like you do when you do things that could result in identity theft. Encrypt them or something.

    Common sense. What the fuck.

    1. Thanks, sarc, that’s basically what I was getting at.

    2. On the other hand, naked selfies sure exposed CHP for the creeps they are.

    3. Common sense. What the fuck.

      Digital aspects aside;

      1. Don’t take selfies.

      2. If you do take selfies, realize that someone (up to and including everyone) might someday know. If that’s a problem in any way, see #1.

      Even if it were written into law, nudies would still be taken and exist. There is a phenomenally pervasive industry of men and women who are completely ok with being photographed naked.

      More relevantly, being naked *and viewing nudity* (regardless of any intent) is not a crime. The officer certainly should be disciplined/convicted for unnecessarily confiscating the phone and disseminating data that wasn’t his to disseminate. The fact that the photos were of nude women is irrelevant and making it relevant is just as bad, if not worse than banning naked selfies.

      1. . The fact that the photos were of nude women is irrelevant and making it relevant is just as bad, if not worse than banning naked selfies.

        we have a winrar!

  14. Dammit, address the real question.

    Did those officers get home safely that night?

    1. Depends; does lack of lubricant constitute them being harmed?

      1. They’re doing God’s work in some of Imgur’s toughest neighborhoods.

  15. Is it really that hard to make a distinction between somebody who posts this sort of stuff on her facebook page and a situation where an armed goon threatens her if she doesn’t provide access?

    1. I feel like she has more of a choice with the latter.

  16. I feel like she has more of a choice with the latter.

    Congratulations.

  17. Again, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people worship police officers, who are no different than any other government official ? most of which are corrupt.

    “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
    Thomas Paine

  18. Wait, did I stumble onto some sort of bizarro reason? It seems the comments here are, from users who names I recognize from my endless comment lurking, basically giving the cops a pass because they disagree with a person’s right to store whatever they want on their personal property.

    Maybe I’m having a stroke?

    1. I don’t think anyone thinks the cops are in the right, most of the criticisms appear to be about the author using pics of naked chicks to demonize the abuse of authority which (is in itself) enough of a story and worthy of criticism. The photos are irrelevant.

    2. “basically giving the cops a pass”

      Like who? Post quotes.

      1. That’s how I read your comments. Your angry, profanity-laced back and forth with Brandon seemed to imply to me that real outrage was this woman’s behavior, and that the actions of the police were simply a consequence of her degeneracy.

        1. “That’s how I read your comments.”

          I didn’t ask how you read the comments, fuckenstein, I said post quotes showing people were giving cops a pass.

          Your failure to do so speaks volumes.

          1. I can interpret your comments anyway I want, thank you. And there’s nothing you can do to stop me from thinking you’re a cop-felating retard.

            Your tears are simply a bonus.

            1. “I can interpret your comments anyway I want, thank you.”

              Thank you for the admission that you were wrong in your interpretation and cannot support it with quotes.

              1. “And the cops are tot al scum and criminals here too.

                What now Brandon’s stupid fucking sockpuppet?”

                LOLOLLOL

                1. Sure, you typed that, but I don’t believe that you mean it. I can sense in your indignant, roid-fueled internet rage that you’re a true friend of our Heroes In Blue.

                  Oh my god.. You’re dunphy, aren’t you?

                  STOP SOCKPUPPETING DUNPHY
                  I’M ONTO YOUR GAME YOU ROGUE

              2. My interpretation right. You’ve proven yourself too stupid to even understand your own thoughts.

                You should be thanking me for clearing this up for you. You’re welcome, my simple friend!

              3. Your thoughts aren’t secure … so we can interpret them anyway we want. Maybe you shoukd go to a private message board where you won’t have this problem.

                And you argue like Mandalay

        2. “with Brandon ”

          Why use a fucking sockpuppet cunt?

          1. This may shock you, but did you ever think it were possible that just maybe more than one person on the internet disagrees with you?

            No, no, you’re right: it’s much more likely that it’s one person doing all that extra work to perpetuate a conspiracy against you.

            1. “No, no, you’re right”

              I know, you’re Brandon and it’s fucking sad.

              1. Wrong again, fool! I’m sockpuppeting for Brandon’s sockpuppet’s sockpuppet.

                It’s pretty complicated, but I refer you to the movie “Inception” if you’re interested in trying to understand it.

              2. Sorry, there’s only one Brandon. Well, here anyway.

        3. You read his comments? Why? Don’t you have reasonable installed?

          1. “You read his comments?”

            So did you.

            “Don’t you have reasonable installed?”

            Thanks, forgot about that, great idea.

          2. I wonder what’s in that reply. Probably a picture of a kitten. I wouldn’t know, since I filtered him as soon as I saw his username.

            It doesn’t sound like I’m missing much.

          3. N reasonable for me; I like to expose myself to retarded viewpoints.

            Keeps the mental immune system strong.

            1. Oh, I use Twitter for that. At least that way I get push notifications.

              1. Now that crosses the line into masochism.

                1. It’s better than having to read though comments to find out if there’s any new abusive stupidity. Besides, Twitter is easier to filter.

      2. She didn’t get arrested because she had snatch pics on her phone, that doesn’t even fucking make sense.

        It was theft. Of property. That she stupidly put in a place where it wasn’t secure. That’s all. At least some of that is on her.

        Saying that it is her fault is not blaming her?

    3. Maybe I’m having a stroke?

      It’s not giving the officers a pass, it’s more about modern women’s progressive distortion puritanism.

      If the officers had taken and stolen pictures of these women’s families or if they all drove nice cars and those pictures had been lifted, Reason wouldn’t have run this story.

      1. Oh man, I hate to use this phrase, since the Social Justice people have ruined it, but fuck it, here we go:

        You’re victim blaming.

        Ugh, I feel dirty now.

        1. “You’re victim blaming.”

          Yes I’m blaming her for putting something she presumably thinks is valuable and important in a place where it is FAR too easy too access.

          And the cops are tot al scum and criminals here too.

          What now Brandon’s stupid fucking sockpuppet?

        2. Good, good! Use your cosmotarian feelings! Feel the cocktail party invites FLOW through you!

          1. i lol’d

        3. You’re victim blaming.

          I can’t imagine this to be the case. If anything, I’m suggesting that, not only are the victims innocent, but that there are more innocent victims that are not being considered.

          It occurs to me a semantic error may have been made on my part;

          If the officers had taken and stolen pictures of these women’s families or if they [the women] all drove nice cars and those pictures any showy pictures of their cars had been lifted and shared, Reason wouldn’t have run this story.

          1. This is probably true, but sometimes you have to play up a particular angle to get through to people. If this is what it takes to get through to some people that police abuse is a real problem, so be it.

            1. The problem with this attitude is that the angle feeds rather directly into the other shit storms that Reason readily directs us to.

              The ones where women are sexually liberated, but none of us should even have impure thoughts about one another without sober documented affirmative consent. Or where minors sext nudies to each other and everybody (or even just the boys) gets rounded up on child. pornography charges.

              I guess it remains to be seen if any of the officers were passively collecting shared photos or if they were all confiscating property, performing warrantless searches, etc., etc.

      2. If the officers had taken and stolen pictures of these women’s families or if they all drove nice cars and those pictures had been lifted, it would’ve been just as outrageous. But it didn’t happen because the cops are perverts and chose to just steal the nude pics.

    4. “You could be more careful” is not the same as “It’s all your fault.”

      Take locks for example. They won’t stop a determined thief, but they will keep an honest person honest.

      If someone leaves something unlocked, and as a result has something stolen from them, admonishing them for not locking up is not giving a pass to the thief.

      1. She did take reasonable security precautions, but they didn’t help. The pigs can use rubber hose cryptography to get what they want.

        1. The pigs can use rubber hose cryptography to get what they want.

          Not all encryption comes with an automatic back door. It’s much easier to just intimidate or lie in order to acquire a password.

          I’m pretty sure that most people don’t know that they can say “No” to a cop who demands their phone’s password. They just do as they are told because they are conditioned to obey authority.

          1. The police don’t magically start obeying the law just because you pull out the know your rights stuff. They might choose that time to smell marijuana in your car, or believe that you resemble a known sex worker, or any number of things.

            1. No shit, Sherlock. What’s next? You’re going to tell me that water is wet?

              My point is that saying “You could be more careful” is not giving a pass to someone who takes advantage of your carelessness and does something bad to you.

              1. Water is wet. There’s a Wikipedia page on it if you need to brush up. And the fact that bad things happened to these women is not proof that they were careless. You can take reasonable precautions, and they can be thwarted by a cop implicitly threatening you.

    5. Wait, did I stumble onto some sort of bizarro reason? It seems the comments here are, from users who names I recognize from my endless comment lurking, basically giving the cops a pass because they disagree with a person’s right to store whatever they want on their personal property.

      If I may, I’d like to take a shot at this…

      This is a multi-layered discussion. The cops are wrong and should be prosecuted as criminals, they should have their pensions stripped, and each who engaged in this should have to register, for the rest of his life, as a sex offender.

      Having said that…

      There is much confusion amongst the many and varied technology users in what you think is private isn’t actually. It’s not “siding with the cops” to gently warn someone that making bits not copyable is a bit like making water not wet.

      It’s a risky venture to store unencrypted digial copies of stuff you don’t want other people to see on a device you carry in your pocket. You have 100% right to do it, just as I have 100% to not lock my doors at night.

      1. It’s a risky venture to store unencrypted digial copies of stuff you don’t want other people to see on a device you carry in your pocket. You have 100% right to do it, just as I have 100% to not lock my doors at night.

        Well…in fairness, she had a password on it, which as has been pointed out is no magic shield. To keep with the front door analogy, it’s more like she locked her door, but was unaware she had picked out a $5 combination lock for this purpose and that the burglars in her neighborhood all carry boltcutters as a matter of course.

        I think the worst thing I could call her for that is a touch naive, but all of the comments above calling her a “fucking idiot” and worse are way, waaaaaaaay uncalled for.

        1. I think the worst thing I could call her for that is a touch naive, but all of the comments above calling her a “fucking idiot” and worse are way, waaaaaaaay uncalled for.

          I have not read all the comments, and if that was said above, I agree, that’s out of line.

          My general rule of thumb is, don’t upload things to servers that don’t belong to you, don’t carry anything on your person you don’t want the TSA or the Cops to ogle. If you must, encrypt the shit out of it and never give up the password.

          1. Isn’t that a bit like the informational equivalent of the woman who never shows skin and doesn’t drink in public so that she doesn’t get raped?

            If you can do that, and that’s what it takes to feel secure, go for it, but there are a lot of levels below that that are reasonable risks.

            1. That’s not my intent. Mainly because this nude selfie issue is only one corner of a bigger problem with the police.

              I thought I was pretty clear in my first post, saying the any cop involved in this should have to register as a sex offender, so I don’t take what the cops are doing lightly, at all.

              If I may with another real-world analogy. I have a right to drive down the road with $30,000 in a duffel bag– or hell, $2500 in cash in an envelope.

              Unfortunately, we have this gang of roving thieves who can take the money from me and there’s little I can do about it. So all I’m trying to say is, be very careful when you have a duffel bag with $30,000 in the back seat of your car. This creepy gang of guys who wear their colors will steal it from you if they find it.

              1. I didn’t think you were taking it lightly. We’re agreed on the generalities.

                What disturbs me is that some people here seem to be (accidentally) suggesting that the only reasonable precautions you can take are never to take nudies, and if you do, they will consider it negligent. But you can easily make optimal choices and still have bad outcomes. The race is not always to the swift, etc. From my point of view, they took reasonable measures to prevent their photos from being stolen by 98% of the creeps out there. It just so happens that their measures don’t work with the king’s men. There’s only so much you can do about that.

                Incidentally, the time I’m most worried about rape and violence is when I’m getting pulled over. Oddly, I don’t feel that way when surrounded by, say, gamers or Pythonistas. Funny, that.

  19. my roomate’s step-mother makes $77 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for five months but last month her paycheck was $15458 just working on the computer for a few hours. you can try here …..

    ?????? http://www.cashbuzz40.com

    1. Is she posting nude selfies tho?

      1. No, just storing other people’s nude selfies for later.

  20. people need to realize that taking naked “selfies” actually carries some risk of them falling into the wrong hands – whether you’re a celebrity or not and whether it’s right or not.

    1. What I find more disturbing/irritating is the new, more byzantine, progressive puratinism.

      Women should be as free as ever to feel empowered by their sexuality. They should celebrate by taking naked photos as liberally, even unwisely, as they please. However, should said photos ever be released to any miniscule division of the public, it is a horrendously shameful act, both for the people viewing/sharing the photos and ‘the victim’.

      We should all carry cameras constantly and never look at photos and celebrate sexual liberty by making sure we never even think impurely.

  21. What the fuck is going on here? Pigs stealing our dick pics is more or less OK because we shouldn’t be sluts, is that it?

    1. Shut up, slut.

      1. FUCK YOU SHITLORD

        *gains 400 pounds, put on corset and fishnets, attempts to walk*

        1. Renaissance Fairs are a trigger for me.

          1. Good to know. What kind of a trigger? Panic? Sexual? Violence? Flashbacks?

            1. All of the above.

              1. Okaaaaay. *puts full Tudor gown and accoutrements back into the closet*

                1. If my wife would let me go to Renaissance Fairs, I’ve always thought I’d do pretty well as a professional insulter.

                  1. I would pay good, non-fiat money to see SF unload a torrent of abuse at David Friedman at a SCA meetup. Bonus points if the slurs possess an Austrian flair or entail calling him a socialist.

                  2. Puke and Snot are AWESOME! And still going after 20 some odd years.

              2. They’re always a package deal for Sugarfree.

      2. Pot, kettle, black.

    2. Thank you, Warty. I knew I could count on you to be supportive of the slut community’s rights.

    3. Pigs stealing our dick pics is more or less OK because we shouldn’t be sluts, is that it?

      When they ask for your license and you give them a dick pic is it stealing?

      Does that make you a slut?

      If it does, is that inherently a bad thing?

    4. I didn’t see anyone give the police a pass.

      Let’s say you leave your house unlocked, and the neighbor’s teenager walks through the door and pokes around your shit while you’re at work. Something he wouldn’t have done had the door been locked, since he’s not curious enough to smash your window.
      Does saying “Shit dude, you should have locked up” give the kid a pass? Obviously not.

      This is no different.

      1. Yeah, but if you were home and locked the door but didn’t dead bolt it, we wouldn’t say “you shouldn’t have had that stack of 50’s on the front table”.

        (Of course if you unlock the door to let the guy in…)

        1. This is ignoring the coercion aspect.

          1. Well yeah, the coercion aspect just makes everything worse.

  22. It’s amazing what reason will tolerate. I don’t think there’s another site on the internet that would allow a long-term troll to insult any its writers like this.

    1. Right? Like that asshole who always pointed out that Matt Welch’s glasses made him look like an unemployed lesbian.

      1. /me looks at her Wayfarer frames and frowns.

        Technically, I’m a freelancer…

      2. Matt is quite fat enough.

      3. Or how some commenters got Reason sued? Awesome. I dream of AAW (alleged fornicator of ovines) meeting Warty in a dark alley some day.

        Reason truly is amazing in its dedication to open discourse. Fuck, they publish Chapman and Bok.

        I also think up-thread jackass should lay off ENB. She has a beat and she reports it. Ease up regulator.

        1. Warty would tear off that little shit’s face and nail it back on upside down.

          1. Are we talking about AAW or Tulpa? Either way, that’s putting it mildly.

            1. One sheep-fucker’s pretty much like another.

  23. Christ, what the hell is wrong with that FYBC guy? Trolling is one thing, but this is crossing the border into some kind of psychosis.

    1. Reasonable takes care of all of that for you. I haven’t had to see anything by shrike, Sevo, or any of the other consistent morons in months. It’s so liberating.

      It’s only because I’m not smart enough to argue with them, of course.

      1. I like to keep up with the latest talking points.

  24. Harrington had deleted evidence they had been sent from the woman’s iPhone, but the phone was synced to her iPad as well.

    Ohhh officer Harrington… as someone who has had to help a number of people who accidentally got all seventeen of their iDevices synced together and didn’t mean to, it’s best to just leave this shit to the experts.

  25. On a serious note. I do find that screepcap of the chat suspicious. The overlapping is not something that happens to my knowledge. The fields are dynamic and will truncate not overlap.

    1. I assumed it was fictional or strictly representational.

      I know plenty of cops and/or self-righteous assholes. I know of none self-righteous enough to choose “Officer Jackass” as their chat alias.

  26. These women and that bottom-feeding lawyer obviously hate cops. And if these cunts actually cared about public safety they wouldn’t be storing nekkid pix of their twats for those hard-working Little Boy Blue’s to be distracted by because they need to focus on saving us all from all the bogeyman running hither and yon.

    /Statist brain vomit

  27. Please don’t call it Cali. It sounds stupid and Californians just don’t call it that.

  28. I’m sure these cops will enjoy official immunity, while a prodigy like Aaron Schwartz was hounded by our government to suicide for similar “crimes”.

  29. “Not only did the cops illegally access women’s photos, they then proceeded to be judgmental dicks about them.”

    So they acted like sarcastic and John over celebrity photos?

    1. “sarcasmic” dammit.

  30. My buddy’s sister-in-law makes $83 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $17994 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  32. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  33. Facts folks. Facts!

    1) None of the articles about these incidents indicate that the officers involved demanded passwords. They only indicate that the officers sent the pictures from the cell phones to their own devices.

    2) No charges have been filed. Officers Harrington and Hazelwood have been given desk jobs while the CHP “investigates”.

    3) It’s a felony to download information from someone’s electronic device without their consent.

    What is of concern is 2 and 3. They should be terminated period. They’ve admitted to doing this. At the very least, they should be put on leave without pay. How do such matters work at your employer?

    And, the investigation needs to come from outside the CHP. The local paper editors have called for this as I’m sure other have.

    It is inconceivable that the Contra Costa and Alameda DAs aren’t more on this. Both offices have said they have reviewed the matter but are limited in what they can do by jurisdiction. I guess crossing county lines makes one unassailable now.

    The petty and crass arguments here only minimize the seriousness of LEO wrong doing. A good house cleaning at the CHP with indictment and prosecution would help to rein police abuse in all agencies and let us discuss some other topic.

    1. I stand corrected. In breaking news today, it turns out that her husband gave the officer her password!

      http://contracostatimes.ca.new…..U6g2q7zQ==

      Well, that pretty much turns Chris Rock’s rule about not having an angry woman as a passenger into a non-sexist rant.

      The good news seems to be, that the case is widening and there may even be some prosecution.

      In case any CHP officers are reading this forum, let me just say that I’ve known many LEOs, including CHPs in my life and I do realize you aren’t all the miscreants that commenters here seem to want to believe. The ones I’ve known have been at least as upstanding as any other subgroup of folks I’ve known and often have a more enlightened sense of right and wrong.

      If we were to extrapolate the tarring of a group as people on this forum do over to say, being black in America, then all blacks must be criminals. I don’t think these supposedly REASONable folks be really comfortable with that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.