Surveillance state: Cops don’t like GPS tracking either

By Christopher B. Daly 

This is rich.

Today’s Boston Globe has a story  about a contract dispute between Boston’s street cops and the city. The city wants to put GPS tracking devices in all Boston Police cruisers, ostensibly so they can mobilize patrolmen more rapidly in a crisis.

Turns out, the cops don’t want GPS trackers to be used on them. They don’t like it any better than the rest of us do, and they want to bargain with the city to keep GPS devices out of their cruisers.

Great quote from the Globe story:

“No one likes it. Who wants to be followed all over the place?” said one officer who spoke anonymously.

And another one — from the patrolmen union’s lawyer:

“This thing keeps a permanent record of where an officer is all day. If he stops to go to the bathroom, that stop appears on the screen. If he goes a mile over the speed limit, someone can question that. It’s quite an intrusion on people’s lives.”

Exactly. This is exactly why ordinary, law-abiding citizens don’t want to be watched all the time either.

This comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling back in January, in which the court held that it was an invasion of privacy for police agencies in general to slap a GPS tracker on the automobile of a suspect who has not been charged with a crime.

I welcomed that decision, but now the Boston police cruiser case raises a question: why not track the cops? After all, when they are on duty, this is a workplace issue, not a privacy issue. We give them those cruisers and the guns they carry and the power that goes with the badge. For 40 hours a week, while they are exercising that awesome power, and if they are put on notice first, then I would be okay with monitoring the cops. After all, someone has to watch the watchers.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under surveillance

One response to “Surveillance state: Cops don’t like GPS tracking either

  1. David

    Exactly right about the difference between workplace issues and public place issues–and taxpayers would save millions or even billions cumulatively if all cars given to by public employees for work purposes were monitored.

    How would GPS’s in police cars be any more intrusive than the dashboard video cameras commonly used, which have helped sort out bogus claims of police misconduct from valid claims?

    And why are the nearly omnipresent security cameras in England ignored by those seeking to describe the US as by far the most intrusive surveillance state?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s