Brickbats

Brickbat: Suspicious Minds

|

The Chicago Police Department has apologized after a local newspaper reported it had been running background checks on people who speak at meetings of the Chicago Police Board. Cops have been searching not only police databases, looking for outstanding warrants and criminal history, but also the social media accounts of speakers. They had been doing this since at least 2013. In a statement, the department apologized for "any mistrust that this practice may have caused."

Advertisement

NEXT: Will Silicon Valley have to choose between end-to-end crypto and shutting down speech it hates?

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. “We apologize for getting caught…”

  2. Sheley called for an internal audit to be conducted so the public will know the extent of the information gathered by the Police Department.

    Why bother? Unless you’re attaching consequences to the findings, it’s just a circle jerk that doesn’t come to any kind of fruition.

    Perk up your ears next time you hear that your government is populating a new database. It will be abused.

    1. Oh, but we’re gathering this data to bust murderous terrorists! We would NEVER use it to bust pot smokers, or those who speak out against abuses by the cops! Trust us, we’re pubic employees!

  3. Sounds like a simple security precaution to prevent violence at a public meeting. Nothing was done that is not required for a pistol permit. If we are willing to give up the second amendment to ‘common sense’ infringement, what is the problem here?
    It also sounds like the ACLU twists themselves into knots to say that browsing social media is evil if a cop does it, but just fine if anyone else does it.

    1. “Sounds like a simple security precaution to prevent violence at a public meeting.”

      Alternate explanation: This is an example of Government Almighty suppressing those who DARE to suggest that Government Almighty does ***NOT*** love us all, Dearly and Deeply. Speak out against Government Almighty at a pubic meeting? DARE to mention abuses by cops? We WILL be looking into you, your politics, and whether there are outstanding warrants for your arrest! Perhaps, for example, for blowing on a cheap plastic flute, without proper permission?

      To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

    2. “If we are willing to give up the second amendment to ‘common sense’ infringement, what is the problem here?”

      + 1000

    3. Their checks went way beyond “a simple security precaution”. It’s also pointless because regardless of a person’s prior history, they retain the constitutional right to petition for redress.

      Your analogy to a pistol permit is a logical fallacy to those of us who think those infringements are inappropriate. Two wrongs don’t make a right. (But three lefts do.)

      To your final point, there are a fair number of things that are evil if a cop does it but just fine for everyone else. Suspicionless investigations of social media certainly counts among them.

  4. “Your analogy to a pistol permit is a logical fallacy to those of us who think those infringements are inappropriate. Two wrongs don’t make a right. (But three lefts do.)”

    Speaking of fallacies, circular reason much?

Please to post comments