back to article NYPD blues: Cops ignored 93 percent of surveillance law rules

Back in July 2020, then New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act into law, which required the New York Police Department to reveal how it uses surveillance technology and to formulate surveillance policies. The NYPD, however, has rejected 93 percent of the advice from …

  1. NoneSuch Silver badge

    Corrupt politicians and laws you cannot trust people to follow would be around the end of book 4 of 5 in the Fall of the Roman Empire.

    How history repeats itself.

    1. Wzrd1 Silver badge

      With no due respect, you've gone off half cooked and hence, gave a full Arsenal response.

      In large part due to this poison pen, yellow journalism article.

      The law was passed and followed. The OIG is not a legislature, nor executive brach of the government. Indeed, they're not a part of the government at all, so their recommendations are just as valid as mine and I'm not a resident of NYC.

      I agree with most of their suggestions, but those have precisely zero color of law.

      Until the legislature and executive brach of the city enact a law, nothing will get done. If they do and NYPD refuses to comply, firing will occur and imprisonment for contempt of court will occur.

      We don't do god-kings, tyrant kings or corporate laws, we have charters fir cities and counties, Constitutions for state and federal governments.

      1. Keven E

        I reject your reality and substitute my own

        I'd imagine there are reasons these *bodies exist.

        Yet most all the objections are a general "we already comply with the law".. in essence .."perhaps it's too much effort

        to implement any of your suggests, but thanks for the comments...we'll keep an eye on this"


        "If they do and NYPD refuses to comply, firing will occur and imprisonment for contempt of court will occur."

        And when that happens we'll all celebrate the pigs getting airborne!

  2. teknopaul

    Separate law and order

    It's my form beleif that law and order should be separated. Thug with guns might be needed for order and perhaps protection but they should not be the same organizational that investigates crimes and hands out fines.

    Police just ignore traffic laws themselves because they collectively decide never to catch themselves. But a separate organisation that had control of cameras and doeld out fines could eventually be sufficiently independent to keep an eye on the cops.

    Law and Order should never have been bundled together in the first place it was bound to result in corruption when you think about it.

    Gone are the days that cops are useful for investigation. All that is done with digital surveillance these days and cops should not even have access to those tools.

    1. Uncle Ron

      Re: Separate law and order

      Isn't it called cops and judges? Or cops and courts?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Separate law and order

        In some countries, like France, judges investigate. In the US, the police does.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Separate law and order

        the rhere's this by Tim Cushing 3/29/2023

        from the had-to-find-the-line-to-cross-it-but-really-went-the-extra-mile dept /2023/03/29/fifth-circuit-finally-finds-a-cop-unworthy-of-immunity-strips-protection-from-officer-who-shot-man-five-times-during-routine-traffic-stop/

        Fifth Circuit Finally Finds A Cop Unworthy Of Immunity, Strips Protection From Officer Who Shot Man Five Times During Routine Traffic Stop

        To be fair, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals doesn’t always hand out immunity while waving away egregious, often horrific rights violations perpetrated by law enforcement officers. But it certainly seems to frequently find creative ways to let cops exit lawsuits, no matter how awful their behavior.[...]

  3. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    WHy do we get so many stories about american cops this or that ?

    Dont police any where in the world do anything ?

    1. NeilPost Silver badge

      Fire Service too.

    2. Graybyrd

      Cops on Camera

      "WHy do we get so many stories about american cops this or that ?"

      Easy... since the streets became filled with smart phone cameras, and cops began wearing cameras, America's cops have earned an international reputation... and it ain't much to brag about. So, the price of fame, perhaps?

  4. Uncle Ron


    I'm not so much worried about what they officially, trackably share with other gov't agencies. I don't actually foresee NYPD sharing fee-paid. personally identifiable information with a commercial entity. What I am worried about is some NYPD clerk or bureaucrat tapping in to this stuff for personal information or something to sell. The same as I am worried about some tin-pot deputy sheriff or county clerk anywhere in the country looking at the wealth of NCIC data for the purposes of blackmailing an ex-girlfriend or spouse or celebrity. I don't trust -any- of the "safeguards" on -any- of these systems.

  5. Uncle Ron


    Collecting, storing, and disseminating this data should be OUTSIDE the "cop-house." Huh?

  6. ITS Retired

    Apparently the real life New York Police Department is nothing like what the CBS show "Blue Bloods" version of the NYPD police department is depicted as being.

  7. Barrie Shepherd

    Substitute "UK Police" in place of NYPD and you would probably have a pretty good idea of the situation in the UK.

    1. Probie

      No you would not

  8. Wzrd1 Silver badge

    Yellow journalism at its best

    The law is being complied with and the organization has no legislative authority. Good suggestions, but cops resist suggested changes and only obey the law's requirements.

    I expect better of The Register than a poison pen article!

    1. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: Yellow journalism at its best

      The article, however, reports that the OIG claims that NYPD is not releasing sufficient information to verify that it is indeed obeying POST Act's requirements. That may not be, in itself, a violation of the law, but it's a horrible smell.

      If it was a private citizen saying "don't worry, I've not broken any law, you don't need to check - and, in fact, I will actively refuse to help you do that", it would be suspicious, and society would have the ability, through proper channels such as a court order, to force disclosure of relevant information. Within constitutional limits, this is good and proper, otherwise people could break any law as long as they weren't obvious about it. Right?

      I don't see why law enforcement should have any special privilege in that regards. If there are laws that the cops must obey as they perform their duties, then there should also be a way to get relevant information, otherwise those laws are unenforceable.

      Refusal do disclose which third parties get access to data is especially worrying in that regards, because even someone who trusts NYPD is unlikely to trust arbitrary unknown third parties.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like