4 ms·

Police data is not classified.

belorn 5y ago
It isn't? I would think that information such as of people with hidden identity or informants was not public information but rather something for which the government has deemed sensitive enough to protect. Am I wrong? In my country any information related to a on-going investigation is automatically classified. Police are not allowed under the law to divulge to the press any such information.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  In the US, barring other qualifiers, "classified" is a federal designation for national security data. Police are not federal. I could get more pedantic about it; there are designations like "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive" for data that can be shared with police. The police are allowed to keep various information internally. I'm not sure that license plate ownership information is protected at all, though, for this specific case.
- kelnos 5y ago
  My (possibly flawed) understanding is that "classified information" in the US is pretty much a federal government thing, and is usually used for information relating to national security or spy-agency type stuff. I would imagine information about informants or people with hidden identities would be considered privileged information in whatever state/local law enforcement jurisdiction created it, but penalties for leaking or distributing it would be a local matter, and many localities might not have specific laws on their books to deal with it. Regarding on-going investigations, police aren't supposed to publicly discuss information about investigations, but they may if they deem that there is a public interest in doing so, or that doing so will help them with their case. I may very well be wrong here, but my gut suggests that in most places in the US there are likely not specific laws against public disclosure of details of ongoing investigations.
- akiselev 5y ago
  (big IANAL) Criminal penalties for revealing information would be a major affront to the First amendment since they're the most direct way for the government to restrict speech. The Federal classification system only works because the individuals given security clearance enter into a special contractual agreement with the Federal government - only someone who has made that agreement can face criminal penalties for revealing classified information. A random pedestrian who's never even been allowed near classified information but stumbled onto it can't be prosecuted (at least, not once it gets to a sane appeals court). That's to say: it'd be up to each state to create its own criminal laws regarding what they consider confidential information (if any) and make sure those laws are constitutional by explicitly writing them into the police officers' contracts. Much of the time, changing internal policy is all that states can realistically do because some federal statute or constitutional clause has supremacy - even something that's normally a fireable offense at a private business might run afoul of constitutional protections when done by a state government or agency.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, how would such a contract work? Normally the violation of a contract just means a tort and not criminal penalty. Surely you cannot simply say something like, "I agree that exercising my constitutional rights is now a federal offense."
    - akiselev 5y ago
      The official contract is Standard Form 312 [1] which strictly only carries civil penalties - it's little more than an NDA except it carries the weight of the executive (in the sense that the executive branch can use its authority to enforce it). The actual criminal charges come from a variety of laws like the Espionage Act of 1917, Intelligence Identities Protection Act, etc that each protect a variety of information using a national security exception to get around constitutional issues. My understanding is that the glue that holds them together is this line in SF 312: > In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation (again, IANAL and this is definitely not legal advice) [1] https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SF312-13.pdf?forceDownload=1 https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SF312-13.pdf?forceDownload=1

It isn't? I would think that information such as of people with hidden identity or informants was not public information but rather something for which the government has deemed sensitive enough to protect. Am I wrong? In my country any information related to a on-going investigation is automatically classified. Police are not allowed under the law to divulge to the press any such information.

caymanjim 5y ago
In the US, barring other qualifiers, "classified" is a federal designation for national security data. Police are not federal. I could get more pedantic about it; there are designations like "Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive" for data that can be shared with police. The police are allowed to keep various information internally. I'm not sure that license plate ownership information is protected at all, though, for this specific case.
kelnos 5y ago
My (possibly flawed) understanding is that "classified information" in the US is pretty much a federal government thing, and is usually used for information relating to national security or spy-agency type stuff. I would imagine information about informants or people with hidden identities would be considered privileged information in whatever state/local law enforcement jurisdiction created it, but penalties for leaking or distributing it would be a local matter, and many localities might not have specific laws on their books to deal with it. Regarding on-going investigations, police aren't supposed to publicly discuss information about investigations, but they may if they deem that there is a public interest in doing so, or that doing so will help them with their case. I may very well be wrong here, but my gut suggests that in most places in the US there are likely not specific laws against public disclosure of details of ongoing investigations.
akiselev 5y ago
(big IANAL) Criminal penalties for revealing information would be a major affront to the First amendment since they're the most direct way for the government to restrict speech. The Federal classification system only works because the individuals given security clearance enter into a special contractual agreement with the Federal government - only someone who has made that agreement can face criminal penalties for revealing classified information. A random pedestrian who's never even been allowed near classified information but stumbled onto it can't be prosecuted (at least, not once it gets to a sane appeals court). That's to say: it'd be up to each state to create its own criminal laws regarding what they consider confidential information (if any) and make sure those laws are constitutional by explicitly writing them into the police officers' contracts. Much of the time, changing internal policy is all that states can realistically do because some federal statute or constitutional clause has supremacy - even something that's normally a fireable offense at a private business might run afoul of constitutional protections when done by a state government or agency.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Out of curiosity, how would such a contract work? Normally the violation of a contract just means a tort and not criminal penalty. Surely you cannot simply say something like, "I agree that exercising my constitutional rights is now a federal offense."
  - akiselev 5y ago
    The official contract is Standard Form 312 [1] which strictly only carries civil penalties - it's little more than an NDA except it carries the weight of the executive (in the sense that the executive branch can use its authority to enforce it). The actual criminal charges come from a variety of laws like the Espionage Act of 1917, Intelligence Identities Protection Act, etc that each protect a variety of information using a national security exception to get around constitutional issues. My understanding is that the glue that holds them together is this line in SF 312: > In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation (again, IANAL and this is definitely not legal advice) [1] https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SF312-13.pdf?forceDownload=1 https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/SF312-13.pdf?forceDownload=1