Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) signs the "Kobe Bryant Bill" into law, making it a misdemeanor for first responders to take unauthorized pictures of dead bodies   (theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Police, Los Angeles Lakers, assembly member Mike Gipson, Kobe Bryant, United States, National Basketball Association, Bailiff, Death  
•       •       •

453 clicks; posted to Sports » and Politics » on 30 Sep 2020 at 4:16 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-29 11:12:40 PM  
Sure, let's report these crimes committed by the police to the police so the police can be brought to justice.
 
2020-09-29 11:27:55 PM  
Good. It is necessary for investigations to take photographs of everything. But personal photographs of such scenes for shiats and giggles is really farked up.
 
2020-09-30 1:47:04 AM  
It's really sad that this, like the don't have sex with horses Mr. Hands act, has to be a law instead of something you just don't do.
 
2020-09-30 2:57:38 AM  
The measure will take effect on 1 January and will make it a misdemeanor with fines up to $1,000 per offense to take such photos

I wonder how much TMZ (or whoever) pays for such photos.  More than $1,000, or less?  Vanessa Bryant's lawsuit is the real penalty; I have a feeling that this law is just positive PR for politicians.  I hope I'm wrong
 
2020-09-30 3:16:22 AM  
First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.
 
2020-09-30 3:24:42 AM  
a law honoring Kobe Bryant forbids people from taking awful shots

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-30 4:21:28 AM  

puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.


Privacy rights.

That responder's first amendment rights do not trump the Bryant family's right to privacy. Those kind of pictures make the news before the family can even be informed.
 
2020-09-30 4:30:02 AM  
Good. Now if we could just find a way for society to stop being so damned interested in seeing the burned, mangled bodies of a professional basketball player and his dead daughter. Sure, give the next cop his $1,000 fine for the misdemeanor; but TMZ or some other farking rag is still gonna offer six figures for the photos. As long as that financial incentive exists, this law won't do a whole lot. Especially given that it's unlikely a police chief or Sheriff would have much luck trying to fire an officer or deputy for violating it; as I'm sure there's examples of more serious crimes not resulting in a firing.
 
2020-09-30 4:30:33 AM  

qorkfiend: That responder's first amendment rights do not trump the Bryant family's right to privacy


I hope.

The question is: why do the deceased have rights to privacy?

I'm being a cynic, which is normal for mw. I just don't trust this country anymore to do the right thing when money is involved, when all legal options are on the table. It may take years, but money just likes to win.
Then again, sadly, the only reason this has been made a law is because it involved a rich guy. Lord knows at least one fire victim in the last few years in California probably wished they'd not been seen as a skeleton across the nation (not just as a prop used by a sociopath to try to get laid in bars).
 
2020-09-30 4:36:11 AM  

puffy999: qorkfiend: That responder's first amendment rights do not trump the Bryant family's right to privacy

I hope.

The question is: why do the deceased have rights to privacy?

I'm being a cynic, which is normal for mw. I just don't trust this country anymore to do the right thing when money is involved, when all legal options are on the table. It may take years, but money just likes to win.
Then again, sadly, the only reason this has been made a law is because it involved a rich guy. Lord knows at least one fire victim in the last few years in California probably wished they'd not been seen as a skeleton across the nation (not just as a prop used by a sociopath to try to get laid in bars).


Don't be obtuse. The deceased obviously doesn't care. The deceased also has a family who do.
 
2020-09-30 4:44:54 AM  

puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.
 
2020-09-30 4:48:24 AM  
"Shame on you!" Policeman belittles gawkers after fatal truck accident | BR24
Youtube 8ffetIbzyK8
 
2020-09-30 4:55:38 AM  
So how am I going to prove to my mother that I died wearing clean underpants?

F*cking nanny state.
 
2020-09-30 4:59:31 AM  

qorkfiend: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Privacy rights.

That responder's first amendment rights do not trump the Bryant family's right to privacy. Those kind of pictures make the news before the family can even be informed.


Morally and by tradition and jurisprudence yes.

Constitutionally, that might not actually be the case.

Would be nice to get a privacy amendment that basically gutted the Patriot Act though, so I'll allow it
 
2020-09-30 5:00:08 AM  
And somehow the cops will twist this into citizens being banned from taking pictures or videos of people they are about to murder, or as a reason why they turned off their body cameras.
 
2020-09-30 5:05:26 AM  

Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.


Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.
 
2020-09-30 5:06:04 AM  

wademh: And somehow the cops will twist this into citizens being banned from taking pictures or videos of people they are about to murder, or as a reason why they turned off their body cameras.


That's my worry.
 
2020-09-30 5:08:50 AM  

Smackledorfer: Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.

Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.


Does the law similarly apply to bystanders and not just first responders?
 
2020-09-30 5:09:31 AM  

Iamos: It's really sad that this, like the don't have sex with horses Mr. Hands act, has to be a law instead of something you just don't do.


That's most laws on the books.

Most rules/laws aren't born in a vacuum. They are literally the result of "Well thanks to THAT asshole I guess we need to codify that sex with horses is a bad thing. We know 99.999 percent of people aren't even considering farking a horse, but there it is. Thanks to Cletus over there now we gotta make a rule."
 
2020-09-30 5:15:06 AM  

qorkfiend: Smackledorfer: Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.

Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.

Does the law similarly apply to bystanders and not just first responders?


I didn't rtfa yet. I merely replied to the person who included the press in their query.

Additionally, I don't know what the press is anymore. Is a blogger not a member of the press? That's a big question we are slowly grappling with.

I think the right answer is anyone who intends to act like the press deserves all the privileges of the press. So, all of us.

I'm not the press today, but I am a first responder. I'm trained in first aid and I can get sent to stuff as a result. I'm not an emt or a cop, I just have first aid training. Someday I might find myself in the position to be both a responder and feel I need to bear witness.

Would you strip me of that press responsibility?
 
2020-09-30 5:15:48 AM  
Doesn't HIPAA apply to bodies and accidents?  I thought we already had laws that, ideally, prevented this sort of voyeurism.
 
2020-09-30 5:18:28 AM  

Smackledorfer: Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.

Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.


Well, that's certainly not easy. The question would be - although, this could - again - be too ambiguous - what are you documenting for what purpose. Are you taking fotos or movies to record a crime or because you suspect there might be something foul? Or are you motivated by a small amount of money to piss on everything you should have been taught in younger years and take a picture of a dead, possibly mutilated, defenseless person whose dignity you can very well hurt even after their death?
 
2020-09-30 5:28:16 AM  

Smackledorfer: qorkfiend: Smackledorfer: Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.

Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.

Does the law similarly apply to bystanders and not just first responders?

I didn't rtfa yet. I merely replied to the person who included the press in their query.

Additionally, I don't know what the press is anymore. Is a blogger not a member of the press? That's a big question we are slowly grappling with.

I think the right answer is anyone who intends to act like the press deserves all the privileges of the press. So, all of us.

I'm not the press today, but I am a first responder. I'm trained in first aid and I can get sent to stuff as a result. I'm not an emt or a cop, I just have first aid training. Someday I might find myself in the position to be both a responder and feel I need to bear witness.

Would you strip me of that press responsibility?


I would deter you from casual violations.
 
2020-09-30 5:30:10 AM  
No farking c*nt should be taking "private" pictures whilst on the public payroll.

I watch a lot of 1st Amendment vids and it is the Law that when they pull out their phones, those images become FOIA.

A public servant does not have the right to pretend to just be an average citizen whilst on the public payroll.

What ever your eyes can see from a public space is a protected activity.
 
2020-09-30 5:34:06 AM  

puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.


Um no. First responders, while they are on duty, do not enjoy the same level of protection from the first amendment. The courts have recognized that some constitutional rights can be restricted while on-duty for Government employees.
 
2020-09-30 5:34:50 AM  

Paddy: Smackledorfer: Paddy: puffy999: First Amendment.

The press will be on this because they OFTEN buy from first responders.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*scratches head*

Could you please explain how not being allowed to take pictures of dead bodies does in any way limit freedom of speech or the work of the press.

Besides, you are either a first responder or you are an idiot exploiting a horrible situation to make a quick buck.

Should the press or a first responder be allowed to release video of a guy who's gets killed with a knee to the neck?

Yes?

Well there ya go. Protect kobe and you protect cops from being able to report malfeasance. Oh, you'll say you if malfeasance is present they get an exception, but they will use this kind of law to justify the thin blue line. "Yes I saw x go down. Yes, I could have recorded it. I wasn't supposed to, and I verbally told my supervisor"

The saddest part about this is that it is a rule that only comes about because our betters, rich people, got upset about something. It isn't the "let's do the right thing" law, it's the "kobe is important, it's a tragedy people didn't defer to that status" law.

I don't know for certain what the right law is here, but I hate that it only comes up because people with status got hurt. Kobe had a phenomenal life by any metric. His family is blessed and privileged. That privilege is what this law is about.

Well, that's certainly not easy. The question would be - although, this could - again - be too ambiguous - what are you documenting for what purpose. Are you taking fotos or movies to record a crime or because you suspect there might be something foul? Or are you motivated by a small amount of money to piss on everything you should have been taught in younger years and take a picture of a dead, possibly mutilated, defenseless person whose dignity you can very well hurt even after their death?


Sure.

But I may not know at the time documentation could take place what it is I'm documenting. And that ambiguousness means anyone who thinks it might be a "good" press action can justify taking pics, and anyone who wants to cover shiat up can say they thought, at the time, there wasn't a good press justification.

Consider police releasing details of an encounter. Sometimes they release a bunch and smear someone, other times they say they cannot tell us fark all because of privacy. This law, any law on these lines, strengthens their ability pick and choose. The best option, as much as some people may suffer, is maximizing sunlight. Because minimizing it never works and the grey area options puts the choice in the hands of the wrong people.

Hell, the biggest spark for violence over our recent blm stuff has been prosecutors publicly stating things like "we've got secret proof the cops are right, and no you cannot have it". A few days of protest later and some shiat set on fire and suddenly cops are charged.

I say don't even give them the leeway to claim secret proof. Some shiat goes down and folks have questions... They need to see the evidence, first to keep law enforcement accountable, but also to satisfy the public.

Take the breeona case (spelling fails me). Allegedly there is proof the cops did identify themselves AND that her boyfriend used her as a shield. That proof would totally justify no cops being charged, but we don't have it because only the grand jury or what have you got to take a look.

A mixed system rarely favors justice imo. In theory it should do the opposite, but I think we all have lost faith in the system at this point.
 
2020-09-30 5:35:45 AM  
This has been a scourge since the 80s at least.

1.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-30 5:36:39 AM  

gadian: Doesn't HIPAA apply to bodies and accidents?  I thought we already had laws that, ideally, prevented this sort of voyeurism.


No. That's not what HIPAA is, at all.
 
2020-09-30 5:38:18 AM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: gadian: Doesn't HIPAA apply to bodies and accidents?  I thought we already had laws that, ideally, prevented this sort of voyeurism.

No. That's not what HIPAA is, at all.


It applies to keeping patient data safe.  Pictures of mangled corpses from a fiery helicopter crash apply directly to patient data - physical and technical security.
 
2020-09-30 6:08:20 AM  

Iamos: It's really sad that this, like the don't have sex with horses Mr. Hands act, has to be a law instead of something you just don't do.


"The guy was a Boeing engineer.  Of all people, he should have known that you don't ram a 747 into a garage!" - Jim Norton
 
2020-09-30 6:28:17 AM  
Wait what? Someone did this? Huh, I have not heard this story yet. So... questions.
Was this not a rule before?
Who did it?
Shared or sold?
*RTFA*
The rule was "no crime scene photos" but accidents were good to go?
That seems an oversight in hindsight.
And it was 8 Deputies who shared them?
Yeah, I'm okay with this (law) dot Jay peg.
 
2020-09-30 7:25:33 AM  
The actual text of the bill:

647.9.
(a) A first responder, operating under color of authority, who responds to the scene of an accident or crime and captures the photographic image of a deceased person by any means, including, but not limited to, by use of a personal electronic device or a device belonging to their employing agency, for any purpose other than an official law enforcement purpose or a genuine public interest is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation.
(b) An agency that employs first responders shall, on January 1, 2021, notify its employees who are first responders of the prohibition imposed by this section.
(c) For purposes of this section, "first responder" means a state or local peace officer, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue service personnel, emergency manager, firefighter, coroner, or employee of a coroner.
 
2020-09-30 7:28:35 AM  
Not that I'm complaining that it took some celebrity dipshiat, but this is a thing that happens a lot when queer or trans people die and I'd guess the latter is a far greater tragedy
 
2020-09-30 7:53:12 AM  

the unabomber was right: Sure, let's report these crimes committed by the police to the police so the police can be brought to justice.


and that $50 fine for a photo they'll sell to some TMZ alternate for $5000 will be such a deterrent.
 
2020-09-30 7:55:43 AM  
A couple years back I was shopping in a small Mexican based grocery store here in texas. They had a rack of magazines with the covers hidden and I thought it to be the standard porn rack. Being curious as to Mexican porn rags, I checked it out. Turns out it was not porn but magazines showing brutal death scenes. Car accidents, industrial accidents and mafia hits. Freaking weird.
 
2020-09-30 8:13:29 AM  
You'd think this would have gone into effect after this whole debacle:

Fark user imageView Full Size


Most people have probably already forgotten this.
 
2020-09-30 8:24:20 AM  

cman: Good. It is necessary for investigations to take photographs of everything. But personal photographs of such scenes for shiats and giggles is really farked up.


My old agency, you got caught taking unathorized pictures, your phone was taken away and logged as evidence.  Thus never to be seen again.  This was probably the most powerful detourant to such behavior in history.
 
2020-09-30 8:47:23 AM  

jjorsett: The actual text of the bill:

647.9.
(a) A first responder, operating under color of authority, who responds to the scene of an accident or crime and captures the photographic image of a deceased person by any means, including, but not limited to, by use of a personal electronic device or a device belonging to their employing agency, for any purpose other than an official law enforcement purpose or a genuine public interest is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation.
(b) An agency that employs first responders shall, on January 1, 2021, notify its employees who are first responders of the prohibition imposed by this section.
(c) For purposes of this section, "first responder" means a state or local peace officer, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue service personnel, emergency manager, firefighter, coroner, or employee of a coroner.


A lot of the public is "genuinely interested" in a dead ball star, so no crime. This law is stupid and useless [like most laws written under celebrity whims]
 
2020-09-30 9:10:33 AM  

Gooch: jjorsett: The actual text of the bill:

647.9.
(a) A first responder, operating under color of authority, who responds to the scene of an accident or crime and captures the photographic image of a deceased person by any means, including, but not limited to, by use of a personal electronic device or a device belonging to their employing agency, for any purpose other than an official law enforcement purpose or a genuine public interest is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation.
(b) An agency that employs first responders shall, on January 1, 2021, notify its employees who are first responders of the prohibition imposed by this section.
(c) For purposes of this section, "first responder" means a state or local peace officer, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue service personnel, emergency manager, firefighter, coroner, or employee of a coroner.

A lot of the public is "genuinely interested" in a dead ball star, so no crime. This law is stupid and useless [like most laws written under celebrity whims]


That's some vagueness right there that kills this on a 1st amendment basis.
 
2020-09-30 9:22:58 AM  
As a first responder, I am 1,000% ok with this law going into effect, even though I don't live in California. It'd be great for every state to ban these pointless and gruesome photos!
 
2020-09-30 10:49:50 AM  
Laws exist because folks are generally bad at refraining from what they ought not do.
 
2020-09-30 10:55:48 AM  

sleze: This has been a scourge since the 80s at least.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]


I saw that movie in a theater in DC. I was the smaller of the two white guys.
 
2020-09-30 10:58:00 AM  

FatherChaos: You'd think this would have gone into effect after this whole debacle:

[Fark user image 350x263]

Most people have probably already forgotten this.


You have people voting now that were children when that happened. They have never heard about it.
 
2020-09-30 11:04:11 AM  
No personal phones on your person while on duty. That would help.
 
2020-09-30 11:28:22 AM  

gadian: HideAndGoFarkYourself: gadian: Doesn't HIPAA apply to bodies and accidents?  I thought we already had laws that, ideally, prevented this sort of voyeurism.

No. That's not what HIPAA is, at all.

It applies to keeping patient data safe.  Pictures of mangled corpses from a fiery helicopter crash apply directly to patient data - physical and technical security.


Look up HIPAA covered entities.

You're wrong.
 
2020-09-30 11:34:32 AM  
But that's my fetish. What is going to happen to all my favorite websites now?
 
2020-09-30 2:41:43 PM  
What about cameras in Colorado hotel suites?
 
2020-09-30 7:57:31 PM  
I just yell KOBE every time I take a picture of a dead body. Modern problems require modern solutions...
 
2020-10-01 5:15:55 PM  

El Brujo: No personal phones on your person while on duty. That would help.


No it wouldn't. Those photos would still be taken with a department phone and would be shared just the same. Nevermind that a vast majority of police officers on the road don't have department issued phones and your "solution" simply doesn't make any practical sense.

There's also the issue that a police officer may receive a personal phone call from say...a child's school, or a doctor, or may need to receive a personal e-mail while working that he doesn't want the city/county/state to have unfettered access to.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.