“The approximately 49,000 NYPD employees do not need any more parents to guide them in their typical police duties. They’ve got this.”
There is transparency in government, then there is foolishly handing over the playbook to those who seek to destroy. There’s also infighting within metropolis governance such as the enormity of the nation’s largest municipal police force, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and 51 political heads comprising the NY City Council. The latter wrote a bill mandating exposure of all the NYPD’s gadgetry and know-how with regards to combating terrorism. The former argues against such ludicrous forfeiting of criminal intelligence and terrorist-abatement equipment.
The New York Post article covering this story jabbed at the zaniness in its opening paragraph: “A City Council bill will force the NYPD to open its anti-terror playbook to the public – a move the department warned would create ‘a blueprint for those seeking to do harm.’ ” Although this resembles a “fake news” topic, I’m afraid it is authentic. Bizarre but real.
NY’s Proposed Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act
In a move to further regulate its police force, the NYC Council authored the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act (POSTA), the brainchild of Councilman Dan Garodnick (D–Manhattan) whose POSTA child for ridiculous laws is unnerving NYPD’s command staff and its rank-and-file officers. In essence, the NYPD’s crime-fighting and anti-terrorism technologies and strategies will be an open book for oppositionists whose undermining mission statement is under the POSTA byline “The Need for Local Transparency” as follows:
“There is deep concern about how the Trump administration will use the powerful surveillance tools at its disposal, whether to target historically marginalized communities under the guise of national security, to bluntly enforce immigration laws, or to wage “war” on the news media. But in New York City, there should be no confusion about the NYPD’s role in Trump’s agenda, the types of surveillance tools being used on New Yorkers, or the information that the NYPD collects and share with state and federal agencies.”
How’s that for a jaded statement chock-full of betrayal and needless brouhaha? The very next section is even better, in an eye-poking way, reminiscent of more incite than insight. Under the section subtitled “Secret Surveillance Equipment” he wrote the following hyperbolized language:
“The NYPD has quietly amassed a broad array of new surveillance technologies without public notice, debate, or oversight, including Stingrays (cell phone locators) that can track an individual’s location as well as capture data from or disrupt service of all nearby devices; Military-grade X-ray vans that use radiation to see through walls and vehicles; Automatic license plate readers installed on public roads and patrol cars that can track and predict an individual’s location; ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system with sensitive microphones capable of recording nearby conversations; A Domain Awareness System that integrates data from thousands of security cameras, license plate readers, E-ZPass readers, and MetroCard swipes to track New Yorkers’ travels.”
If only the NYPD had the personnel, time, and the implied nefariousness in the context of the language, I’d buy-into Garodnick’s sensational statements.
The bill goes further to say, “The NYPD shares data with regional and state ‘fusion centers’ as well as the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), which includes representatives from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Yet little is known about what information the NYPD shares, with whom, or whether it may be used by federal agencies to unfairly target immigrants and Muslims.”
Indeed, they do, and it is neither new nor is it undermining the U.S. Constitution authorizing police to counter sanctuary city policies embraced by the NYC Council. Ultimately, what they describe was considered novel well before the Twin Towers were reduced to rubble by the very criminal quarry law enforcement seeks to preempt and apprehend.
The only need-to-know is that there is no need for non-police personnel to know the machinations aiding the war on terror. If one literally does not comprehend the requisite tenet of confidential information and/or classified intelligence, then one ought to join the police force and physically get involved. Leave the ego at the door.
In a seemingly continuous drone, the bill whines:
“The NYPD has acquired new surveillance technologies and joined information sharing networks with little if any input from the City Council. Funding comes from federal grants, private donors, or through loopholes in procurement rules. As a result, the City Council and the public have been left in the dark on important decisions about police surveillance, what happens to the data, and how public funds are used.”
City Council makes it sound as if the NYPD does not have a command staff piloting the police vessel. It has the echelon necessary to run a huge police agency responsible for ensuring public safety and security of a mega-metropolis. The approximately 49,000 NYPD employees do not need any more parents to guide them in their typical police duties. They’ve got this.
The bill contained one final paragraph which contextually stepped on its own toes, as stipulated:
“The POST Act establishes transparency and reporting requirements for the NYPD’s use of potent surveillance technologies and its participation in information sharing networks. It is similar to bills recently passed or introduced in other progressive cities, such as Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Oakland, and it follows the recommendation of President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The POST Act would provide big picture information about new technologies and their permissible uses. It would not disclose operational details to compromise the NYPD’s investigatory duties, but it would provide lawmakers and the public with the information necessary to conduct effective oversight and help restore public confidence in local policing.”
The reference “similar to bills…introduced in other progressive cities, such as Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Oakland” denotes one common denominator: sanctuary city. Yep, following “the recommendation of [former] President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing” oughta hold significant cred. Isn’t that the same Task Force which sought to lower police-hiring standards to include “overlooking” past drug and criminal history? Yes, that is the one, previously reported by OpsLens.
Who’s Behind This Act?
The New York City Council consists of 51 elected council members encompassing representation of five boroughs (counties). In political composition, NYC Council’s make-up is a majority of Democrats: 48-3. Not surprising, the city’s gargantuan geographical landscape and the oft-called melting pot population— blending cultures from all corners of the globe—warrants a large cadre of elected officials to govern its populace of almost 8.5 million. Bustling may be a mild word for NYC. I was raised in the The Big Apple and, it is true: The city never sleeps. Neither does its police force, a good thing.
Given that the site of the former Twin Towers is rebuilt and re-opened as the National 9/11 Memorial & Museum Tower, it seems counterintuitive for the city (any city) to write legislation ordering police to show their wares in the realm of thwarting terrorists and their wanton destructive capacity.
“Civilians are in control of the police force, not the reverse,” said Dan Garodnick (D–Manhattan) who co-authored the bill with Vanessa Gibson (D–Bronx). Fifteen additional city council-members signed-on to support the bill. Frankly, exposing any police technology is equivalent to giving the bad guys a road test. Confidentiality inherent in police operations is a safeguard, not a show-and-tell exhibition.
Realists
However, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is not considered an avid supporter of the NYPD or law enforcement in general, categorizes the bill as a non-starter, said City Hall spokesperson Austin Finan.
Speculation is that de Blasio will veto the bill. In doing so, Garodnick already announced he is willing to make revisions. For starters, I’m sure NYPD command staff can offer an incinerator…or its Bomb Disposal expertise.
In the event this bill somehow passes as is, NYPD legal counsel must merely utter four words: “See you in court.” Part of the NYPD’s “crime reduction” success stories are all over its Press Releases delineating how its use of technology combined with crime-suppression rituals thwart the city’s woes, whether terror-related or not.
NYPD’s Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence and Counterterrorism, John Miller rebuked Mr. Garodnick’s POSTA legislation and enlightened the public during an AM970 The Answer radio broadcast on June 19, 2017. In his interview, Mr. Miller countered the POST Act by stating:
“It would be a law that would endanger people because it would help criminals and terrorists, but it would also endanger police officers because it would allow criminals to learn way too much too easily. It’s one-stop shopping.”
Mr. Miller believes activist groups, such as the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union, compelled Councilman Garodnick to author this kind of law. The June 17 New York Post article title “Will the City Council ever stop aiming to kneecap the NYPD?”chummed the waters with it’s opening line:
“With crime at record lows and anti-police activists (and pols) emboldened, don’t be surprised if someone soon tries to scrap the NYPD altogether. After all, it already seems that which each passing day that city takes another step toward rendering cops powerless.”
And that is the undercurrent swirling in the Big Apple, seemingly rotting to the core while criminals snicker at and seize control of its politicized stem.
Commissioner Miller’s candor continued:
“The activists have in their mind this idea that police departments in cities like New York run massive surveillance programs targeting innocent civilians for no reason. Now that’s nutty. I mean, why would we do that? How could we do that? And how would it make sense?”
As NYC Mayor de Blasio confirmed, privacy rights are inherently “baked in” to NYPD operations, ensuring checks and balances, as usual.
Exactly! And that is what renders the POST Act, well…nutty. I wonder what these lawmakers’ constituents feel regarding the laws written by those they voted into office. What do you think?
