Detroit Police Commander Emails Female Officers' Measurements To Entire Police Force

from the just-Detroit-being-Detroit,-I-suppose dept

An unfortunate and cautionary tale of inappropriate data "leakage" has emerged from Detroit (itself an unfortunate and cautionary tale). The lessons here are many, but one of the first is ALWAYS CHECK EVERY PAGE OF YOUR ATTACHMENT BEFORE FORWARDING TO THE ENTIRE MAILING LIST.

Police sources said about three weeks ago, Commander Dwayne Love was asked to notify the officers that their bullet proof vests were ready to be picked up. So he forwarded an email to the commanders, who then forwarded it to the supervisors, who then forwarded it to the officers.

White claimed Love didn't know the weight, height and bra cup sizes of the women were included on the attached Excel spreadsheet until it was too late.
The personal information was on the third page of the spreadsheet, something Love failed to notice before he forwarded the information. Apparently, everyone else in the chain of command failed to notice it as well. Or ignored it. Long story short, nearly every officer in the Detroit police department had access to the measurements of nearly every female officer on the force.

As is to be expected, certain officers decided to misuse this information.
[S]everal female officers, who say they have faced ridicule from fellow officers, with the help of their union are filing two grievances against the department and one complaint with EOC. Even if Love made an innocent mistake, the damage they feel has already been done.
There's one lesson: no matter what standard certain people are supposed to hold themselves to, there's always several who will willingly let that standard slip.

But there's a larger lesson here as well. The anonymous tipster who sent this in included the following statement with the submission.
Nice article to link to when you need an example of just how "professional" officers can be when they have access to sensitive/personal information.
First off, members of the police department weren't even professional enough to handle their own data without abusing the details that fell into their hands.

Now, extrapolate.

Thousands of police departments across the nation have access to the personal details of millions of citizens, including everything coughed up in order to get a driver's license. Add to that the information gathered by thousands of CCTV cameras, license plate scanners, red light cams, etc. and you've got a ton of data, most of it unrelated to any criminal activity, just laying around waiting for a "bad apple" to root through it for his or her own nefarious ends.

Extrapolate further.

Our nation's intelligence agencies have also gathered tons of data on Americans, much of it under dubious readings and interpretations of standing laws and elastically-defined words like "relevant." When we complain, the defenders explain that it is all handled very carefully and the agencies themselves take extraordinary safeguards against abuse of the gathered data.

But let's all be honest with each other. Every single one of these agencies hires from the human race, and the human race is stocked all too well with people prone to abusing the power and information under their control.

Rather than craft strict rules on the care and disposal of "non-relevant" information, these agencies tends towards amassing the data carelessly and holding it indefinitely. There are exceptions, of course, but the general feeling is grab it and hold it. Just in case.

So, you see the problem. Data is collected and left in the hands of humans. But we're expected to believe abuse is such a rarity that considering stricter safeguards or collection limitations is laughable.

When we see that a single police department can't even handled a botched internal email without finding itself on the receiving end of harassment claims, it doesn't give us much hope for larger data collections held by larger agencies, especially those with previous abuses on their rap sheets.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 7:49am

    [S]everal female officers, who say they have faced ridicule from fellow officers

    Aside from the obvious and very important points the article raised I'd like to point to this one. It's one petty reason to ridicule anyone and yet there are POLICE OFFICERS - who are supposed to be responsible and uphold the Constitution and the law - using it in that way like some clueless, immature kids bullying other kids. Adults my ass. Fire the idiots, they are not fit to carry such great responsibilities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 8:58am

    Fanboy fun! I foresee BIG comments here!

    Congratulations for meeting my expectations of getting under the NSA/car dealer item for lack of importance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anon, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 9:00am

    Not New

    Many years ago in Vancouver(?) pro-choice protesters defending an abortion clinic got abusive mailings from an anonymous source, to their home addresses. Because the Motor Vehicle system logged all access, the issue was narrowed down to a police officer who was pro choice. In his off time he noted the license plates of demonstrators, and then looked up those plaets at work. This was obvious thanks to who he looked up and when, in relation to the mailings.

    Police were then warned that all access is logged and use for anything other than police business is a discipline violation.

    This is the key - is the data properly controlled and access logged? Is access information available to defence lawyers and internal affairs?

    But yes, if data is not really necessay why is it collected? Like NYPD's stop-and-frisk, detaining 90% to catch the 10% (if that) is a violation of constitutional rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 9:26am

    There's a secondary problem here

    We now know they have all this data.

    So does everyone else...where "everyone else" includes people who aren't even putatively law-abiding. It includes kidnappers and blackmailers, extortionists and drug dealers, thieves and pedophiles, rapists and telemarketers -- every variety of scum that the planet has to offer.

    They know these data collections exist, therefore some of them want them, therefore some of them WILL GET THEM. It's inevitable. Whether it's via a security hole or a discarded system in a dumpster or by the old tried-and-true ways (bribery chief among them), they WILL GET THEM. It's only a matter of what, when and where. Not "if".

    And when this happens, and when outraged citizens ask WTF they were doing collecting and storing all this in the first place, they will say (as they always say): "Nobody could have foreseen..." and of course "Because terrorism".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    DCX2, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 10:38am

    Just the women?

    Did the spreadsheet contain just the women's information? If the spreadsheet contained only personal info on men, would it have been a big deal? Or are women the only people whose privacy can be violated by knowing personal information about their body?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 10:45am

    'one of the first (rules) is ALWAYS CHECK EVERY PAGE OF YOUR ATTACHMENT BEFORE FORWARDING TO THE ENTIRE MAILING LIST.'

    perhaps even more relevant would be to make learning how to use a computer or at least how to e-mail, top of the list!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 10:47am

    So was it only the women's meaurements that were leaked or only the women's measurements that should not have been leaked?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 10:50am

    Re: Just the women?

    Wondered the same thing and assumed that the focus on women was "moral outrage for the purpose of hyperbole". That being said it is sadly true that any male officer complaining about the same thing would likely be laughed at.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    "So, you see the problem."

    Hey, if they have nothing to hide...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    justok (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 11:19am

    Oddly enough, if you add up the breast measurements, you get 5318008

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 11:31am

    Should've given it to the NSA, they'll keep it safe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 11:31am

    First time in history I would actually like to see the D list:)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 11:45am

    Several more grievances were filed when everyone realized they were police officers in Detroit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 11:48am

    If NSA spying were involved, they would say that the officers have no expectation of privacy in their measurements, since they are visible to anyone who looks at them. Also, since they gave those measurements to a third party (the uniform seller) the entire Fourth Amendment goes out the window.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Just the women?

    Unless they had cod piece sizes listed on there I really don't see where there would be much of a problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 1:09pm

    What a bunch of boobs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    Re:

    Very well said!
    NSA has a propaganda tools and our tax money, not like DPD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 3:08pm

    Just go bankrupt and die already, Detroit. You deserve it for foisting Kid Rock upon the world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 14th, 2013 @ 3:59pm

    Re: Just the women?

    Each bulletproof vest is made to fit a specific range of measurements, much like a fitted shirt. Breast size is a factor. But you are right... I've seen a lot of male DPD officers and some have boobies that are just as big as their female counterparts'!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    art guerrilla (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 5:59pm

    yes, very excellent point...

    ...about how not is it 'only too human' to abuse such secretive powers when there is essentially ZERO accountability, oversight, or repercussions, but how it comes down to 'faith-based' government, and 'trusting' these paragons of virtue...
    *snort*

    OUR WHOLE SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE is predicated on NOT trusting fallible individuals, but instituting a PUBLIC system which oversees their actions TRANSPARENTLY...

    we have lost our way in following those principles...

    art guerrilla
    aka ann archy
    eof

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    ioconnor (profile), Aug 14th, 2013 @ 7:57pm

    Re: Just the women?

    Maybe all men and women who take offense with people knowing their measurements can be fitted with gender neutral burkas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), Aug 15th, 2013 @ 3:24pm

    How do you define "a rarity"?

    How do you define "a rarity"?

    Terrorism is a rarity, yet hundreds or thousands of people are killed when it happens. And of course, the government is doing whatever it can in the name of preventing this "rarity".

    Yet when we talk about bad apples in the police force or other government agencies, these are "rarities" also, yet the agencies don't do much to prevent these people from doing something bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    NSA, Aug 15th, 2013 @ 7:41pm

    If we ban math we ban encryption!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This