6 ms·

> The lack of accountability at the MPD is astonishing I'm not quite tracking here. What does this MPD have to be accountable for with respect to this incident

by kodah 5y ago

> The lack of accountability at the MPD is astonishing I'm not quite tracking here. What does this MPD have to be accountable for with respect to this incident? Disposing of PII and sensitive information is pretty standard procedure if you're losing control of a controlled area. When I was in the military we had similar procedures for cryptography, which are in the same realm of PII and sensitive information such as informants or case details. Edit: This link speaks to the federal standard pretty well: https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Article/890471/disposal-procedures-for-documents-containing-personally-identifying-information/ https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Artic... I don't know how or if this pertains to city police, but I imagine there's similar standards. Edit again: I'm getting two vibes from this: - some amount of people want zero accountability for the police - some amount of people want to provide the police with zero room for understanding Both of these groups need to introspect as to what exactly you're trying to accomplish and how you're going about it affects the outcome.

gsk22 5y ago
The second precinct was not burning, and was never in any danger of burning. It is located on the opposite side of the city from where protests were occurring, in neighborhoods that had seen minimal effects from demonstrations. If rioters had been advancing on the building, then surely their actions would be justified. But there was never any danger to property or persons at the second precinct.
- kodah 5y ago
  The article GP posted said there was five miles of distance between the two precincts. Five miles really isn't very far, so I can see why that would be concerning. Destroying stuff that has to be disposed of properly takes time (the link I provided above mandates how certain PII is destroyed - generally it's a specific type of shredder) while also allowing time for the people doing the disposal to retreat. I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Five miles is close in situations where indirect artillery is a factor, but it is a very long distance in a big city.
    - kodah 5y ago
      The average adult walks 3-4 miles per hour. In just over an hour they would be there.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Let’s be honest, “we had to destroy evidence because a riot was happening an hours walk away” is obvious nonsense. There’s genuinely no reason to treat that as anything other than undiluted bullshit. There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.
        kodah 5y ago
        I don't think that's a "transparent lie", but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        If you don’t think it’s a lie, provide evidence that the precinct was under threat. “Someone could walk there in an hour” isn’t sufficient. > but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.
dghlsakjg 5y ago
The military has a defendable reason and history behind destroying documents on the way out in an emergency or as a policy. Gaining and losing territory is part of the business, and the new people coming in are presumably "the enemy". Information being destroyed after it has ceased to be useful is also in the military interest, that is not true of the legal system. The military is also in the explicit business of intentional killings and disrupting existing governance systems, both of which are NOT policing goals. Police departments do not have "the enemy" and should not have a contingency for evidence destruction. Ever. There is no circumstance where it is reasonable to assume that frantically shredding documents serves the public interest. They certainly shouldn't be destroying evidence in a building that isn't the target of protests.
- kodah 5y ago
  The military didn't originate this policy, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did. > IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAS ESTABLISHED ONE STANDARD TO DESCRIBE PERSONAL DATA. I don't think I'd want to be tried on evidence that fell into the hands of protestors or rioters. Provenance is a pretty important part of the evidence of any court case. It's probably safe to assume that they have confidential informants at play that could be involved in serious crimes like human trafficking or drug trafficking. The consequences for this data getting in the wrong hands would be life and death. Whether you want to call the people who would do bad things with that information an "enemy" or not I think is entirely up to you, but at the very least you could think of it as risk-mitigation. It also seems the government has some amount of intent to try to contain the leakage of PII, however ineffective they may be at it aside, given this statement > IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Yes, if a precinct is in reasonable danger of falling into someone else’s hands then it makes sense to destroy sensitive data. The issue is that a lot of us don’t think that that precinct was in any actual danger of falling.

by kodah 5y ago

gsk22 5y ago

The second precinct was not burning, and was never in any danger of burning. It is located on the opposite side of the city from where protests were occurring, in neighborhoods that had seen minimal effects from demonstrations. If rioters had been advancing on the building, then surely their actions would be justified. But there was never any danger to property or persons at the second precinct.

kodah 5y ago
The article GP posted said there was five miles of distance between the two precincts. Five miles really isn't very far, so I can see why that would be concerning. Destroying stuff that has to be disposed of properly takes time (the link I provided above mandates how certain PII is destroyed - generally it's a specific type of shredder) while also allowing time for the people doing the disposal to retreat. I can also see how this could be an opportunistic tactic to coverup wrong-doing. The two can also be simultaneously true.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Five miles is close in situations where indirect artillery is a factor, but it is a very long distance in a big city.
  - kodah 5y ago
    The average adult walks 3-4 miles per hour. In just over an hour they would be there.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Let’s be honest, “we had to destroy evidence because a riot was happening an hours walk away” is obvious nonsense. There’s genuinely no reason to treat that as anything other than undiluted bullshit. There is a lot that MPD could’ve done, and instead they decided to destroy evidence at a precinct uninvolved in the disturbances. Given how bad of an excuse that is and their history of misbehavior, it is perfectly reasonable to not give them the benefit of the doubt here.
      - kodah 5y ago
        I don't think that's a "transparent lie", but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. To me, I can see it being a reasonable response given the nature of the situation. That said, I can also see it being a coverup. There's no details that are very illuminating here, but hopefully an investigation filters out the mud for those interested.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        If you don’t think it’s a lie, provide evidence that the precinct was under threat. “Someone could walk there in an hour” isn’t sufficient. > but you sound like you fall within one of the groups mentioned in my original comment. I’d prefer if you spared the patronizing attitude, thanks.

dghlsakjg 5y ago

The military has a defendable reason and history behind destroying documents on the way out in an emergency or as a policy. Gaining and losing territory is part of the business, and the new people coming in are presumably "the enemy". Information being destroyed after it has ceased to be useful is also in the military interest, that is not true of the legal system. The military is also in the explicit business of intentional killings and disrupting existing governance systems, both of which are NOT policing goals. Police departments do not have "the enemy" and should not have a contingency for evidence destruction. Ever. There is no circumstance where it is reasonable to assume that frantically shredding documents serves the public interest. They certainly shouldn't be destroying evidence in a building that isn't the target of protests.

kodah 5y ago
The military didn't originate this policy, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did. > IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HAS ESTABLISHED ONE STANDARD TO DESCRIBE PERSONAL DATA. I don't think I'd want to be tried on evidence that fell into the hands of protestors or rioters. Provenance is a pretty important part of the evidence of any court case. It's probably safe to assume that they have confidential informants at play that could be involved in serious crimes like human trafficking or drug trafficking. The consequences for this data getting in the wrong hands would be life and death. Whether you want to call the people who would do bad things with that information an "enemy" or not I think is entirely up to you, but at the very least you could think of it as risk-mitigation. It also seems the government has some amount of intent to try to contain the leakage of PII, however ineffective they may be at it aside, given this statement > IN LIGHT OF RECENTLY ESTABLISHED CROSS-AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO ISSUES SURROUNDING THE LOSS OR BREACH OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Yes, if a precinct is in reasonable danger of falling into someone else’s hands then it makes sense to destroy sensitive data. The issue is that a lot of us don’t think that that precinct was in any actual danger of falling.