NYPD Says Software Built To Track Seized Property Can't Actually Do The One Thing It's Supposed To Do

from the planned-obsolescence-hurried-along-by-planned-opacity dept

It's not like the NYPD's earned enough trust to be given the benefit of a doubt, but it's latest excuse as to why it can't come up with requested data sounds about as believable as a soaking wet teen's explanation as to why the family car is currently lying at the bottom of the backyard pool isn't his fault.

The New York City Police Department takes in millions of dollars in cash each year as evidence, often keeping the money through a procedure called civil forfeiture. But as New York City lawmakers pressed for greater transparency into how much was being seized and from whom, a department official claimed providing that information would be nearly impossible—because querying the 4-year old computer system that tracks evidence and property for the data would "lead to system crashes."

The system that "tracks" this information (apparently by tossing input into a pile of unsearchable bits) was considered top of the line in 2012. Sure, technology moves fast but certainly not fast enough to turn something the NYPD claimed would "revolutionize" evidence/property tracking into a hulking pile of sullen, un-queryable data four years later. As Sean Gallagher of Ars Technica points out, the system was submitted for consideration for the 2012 Computerworld Honors, which hands out awards to leaps forward in information technology.

NYPD officials, responding to city's Public Safety Committee, explained that the top-dollar tracking system wasn't actually a system at all.

NYPD's Assistant Deputy Commissioner Robert Messner told the New York City Council's Public Safety Committee that the department had no idea how much money it took in as evidence, nor did it have a way of reporting how much was seized through civil forfeiture proceedings—where property and money is taken from people suspected of involvement in a crime through a civil filing, and the individuals whom it is seized from are put in the position of proving that the property was not involved in the crime of which they were accused.

Where accountability is needed most, it almost always seems to go missing. Asset forfeiture -- in multiple, mostly-nefarious forms -- is a law enforcement tool seemingly handcrafted for abuse and exploitation. When the NYPD isn't seizing cash and cars simply because Officer Smith thought he spotted a fleck of marijuana somewhere in a three-mile radius, it's taking ownership of people's personal belongings (phones, cash, etc.) simply because they happened to be in their pockets when they were arrested.

The NYPD's inability to quantify its sketchy takings isn't surprising. There's nothing to be gained from keeping a tracking system like this in working order. The more data the NYPD can provide to overseers, FOIL-wielding citizens, and meddling defense lawyers, the more likely it is that someone will uncover abuse of the forfeiture process.

The NYPD isn't satisfied with simply being a closed book -- it's actively engaged in removing pages. At some point, someone on the inside must have needed some information and found the tracking system unworkable. But the cost of fixing it -- both in terms of the money paid to contractors and the potential "harm" done to a very profitable program -- was likely considered too much of an expense to bear. So, when faced with demands for data, the NYPD excuses its lack of info production with "the database ate our homework."

What data has been pried loose from the unwilling NYPD already shows it willingly lies to city officials about its asset forfeitures, as the Village Voice reports.

The NYPD's testimony was also disingenuous: As part of a FOIL request filed by the Bronx Defenders, the NYPD had already compiled and released figures that show the staggering amounts that it has seized.

[...]

At the hearing, the NYPD claimed that it only legally forfeited $11,653 in currency last year — that is, gone to court and actually made a case as to why the NYPD should be taking this money.

[...]

In the accounting summaries which the Bronx Defenders submitted as part of its testimony, the NYPD reports that as of December 2013, its property clerk had almost $69 million in seized cash on hand. This amount had been carried over from previous years, showing an annual accumulation of seized cash that has reached an enormous amount. The documents also show that each month, the five property clerk’s offices across the city took in tens of thousands of dollars in cash, ultimately generating over $6 million in revenue for the department.

And where did the Bronx Defenders get its numbers? The same software the NYPD claims can't produce these numbers.

The report that the NYPD released appears to have been generated through the same use of their database that the department now claims is technologically impossible.

At the point of the database's inception, the NYPD claimed it would provide "cradle-to-grave" tracking of seized property. Apparently "cradle-to-grave" is about as meaningless a phrase as "unlimited data:" both terminate far sooner than their descriptors would indicate.

It may be the software can't handle complex queries encompassing the entirety of its seizure records, but that's not an acceptable excuse. The problem should have been caught and fixed by this point. I'm pretty sure the NYPD has some way of tracking seized assets since it seems to have few concerns about bouncing checks when spending the proceeds. But it's sure as hell not going to turn this over to opponents of its sketchy seizure programs without a fight. So when it became apparent the database would provide next to nothing in terms of accountability, the NYPD considered that a feature, rather than a bug.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:13pm

    Disclaimers not necessarily exclusive

    At the hearing, the NYPD claimed that it only legally forfeited $11,653 in currency last year ...

    In the accounting summaries which the Bronx Defenders submitted as part of its testimony, the NYPD reports that as of December 2013, its property clerk had almost $69 million in seized cash on hand.

    These statements are not necessarily exclusive. NYPD is well known for its illegal tactics, so it may be that most of the money it seized was forfeited illegally, or has been placed in some sort of limbo where it is not in the possession of its rightful owners, but has not technically been declared forfeit (yet).

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:25pm

      Re: Disclaimers not necessarily exclusive

      That was my thought when I read that was well. They can provide evidence that they 'legally' seized $11,653, the rest they stole in fashions that aren't so 'legal'.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:14pm

    Seems on par with how the Government works nowadays (regardless of country). Build a system that should be but not quite isn't that can't quite do what you need but can if operated in an specific way that most likely require a whole lot of more working hours. I'd say this article came from a Douglas Adams book if it popped out with the characters involved suppressed.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:16pm

      Re:

      Oh and of course, spend a ton of tax payers money with little oversight and clearly over any sane budget if it was the private sector doing it for itself.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:23pm

    Easy to solve

    Any stolen money or property that doesn't have complete, searchable records is returned to the owner if possible, donated to the funds of the NYC public defender's office in the case of money, or an actual charity in the case of property. If they can't prove that they have it legally then they don't get to keep it, simple as that.

    I guarantee that if such a requirement was put into place the system would magically start working again practically overnight.

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

    • icon
      Dirkmaster (profile), 26 Sep 2016 @ 11:19am

      Re: Easy to solve

      I have a better one. Until such time as a full accounting of all previous seizures has been made, they cannot seize any more. That would crash their 2017 budget for sure, and thus be ample motivation for them to fix or upgrade the system.

      however, I'm betting there's not a damn thing wrong with it. With all those inputs, it might just need some more ram. Or you limit the searches to 6 months at a time.

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

  • identicon
    UniKyrn, 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:25pm

    "Until you can track it, you can't seize it anymore. Seizing after this date and failing to provide tracking when requested results in the instant firing of everybody involved, for cause, as well as prosecution."

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:39pm

    > ...because querying the 4-year old computer system that tracks evidence and property for the data would "lead to system crashes."

    This would imply that that they're still adding data rather than simply not using the system.

    From 1972: Wikipedia: Write-only memory (joke)

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 1:55pm

    I'm wondering

    How assent forfeiture isn't a 4th amendment violation. I mean, I know they use the fiction that they are prosecuting the property, rather than a person, and that property doesn't have any rights to violate. (This doesn't square with Citizens United which holds that money has free speech rights. If money has a 1st amendment right, why doesn't it have a 4th?)

    The law as it stands smacks of a sophist argument and seems that it should be illegal on it's face.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:09pm

      Re: I'm wondering

      Because drugs! All the rules go out the window when drugs are involved! That scrap of paper and the scribblings on it aren't nearly as important as doing everything possible to stop people from even thinking about drugs, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly a criminal communist terrorist drug and seller user of the highest order!

      Drugs!

      (Really wish I could say this was entirely sarcastic instead of a deliberate poe...)

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 6:33pm

      Re: I'm wondering

      Because the courts that are supposed to uphold the constitution are corrupt.

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

  • icon
    madasahatter (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:05pm

    Not that hard

    Does anyone in the NYPD know anything about databases? I can design a system to track the property using a couple of different db engines, the biggest headache will be the user interface.

    Criminals

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:43pm

      Re: Not that hard

      Yep, i seem to recall reading (on another site) that this system was built by capgemini, which is one of those very expensive consulting firms that builds super-enteprisey solutions on top of super-bloated platforms.

      So i'm not the least bit surprised by the claims.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:58pm

      Re: Not that hard

      I would bet the software works fine and the cops are well trained in using it. But when you only give the software 2gigs of ram, an old 32 bit processor and an OS that is probably plagued with bloatware the software will not fare well.

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

      • icon
        Groaker (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 4:05pm

        Re: Re: Not that hard

        A 16 year old computer with 32 bit operating system and far less than 3GB could handle the report writing rather rapidly. The software for such a system would be trivial as long as the city council wasn't demanding to know how many forfeitures were made by those who used credit cards to buy frozen pizzas in the express lane of a supermarket.

        I would say that an out of the country forensic team should be brought in to find out who is stealing the money, but for some reason the NYPD has offices all over the world. Anyone, anywhere would be pressured into falsifying evidence by this reputed "7th largest army in the world" [sic].

        The city council is afraid/unable to force the truth out of these criminals.

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

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 25 Sep 2016 @ 10:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Not that hard

          The incredible thing is that even if a query for a full report "would crash the system", there is this crazy thing people can do when such things crop up. You query a range of time. Then the next...

          Not that i find the "technological impossibility" believable in the first place. They just have to not-even-nerd harder if it were remotely true.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:18pm

    Crashes

    "would lead to system crashes"

    I think means that the number is too large to calculate.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:26pm

      Re: Crashes

      Or the OS has the number 95 in it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 5:41pm

        Re: Re: Crashes

        True story: I know of a moderately sized business that still has a 'doze 95 box running their "least cost" long distance phone switch. It's not connected to the internet or even their network, so it's not a huge risk.

        The business just doesn't see the need to spend more money on a program that's doing it's job and doesn't need any new features - yet. Next year they get VOiP, so the days are numbered.

        That all said: I wonder if the NYPD has heard of "The Cloud". I've a nice ansible script that will do load analysis and kick the box up to more cores or disk, and when that's not enough, kick new VMs on the back end. Your choice of four cloud providers. Look for it on a git near you soon when I get it working cross provider. (Currently it has to stay on whichever you set it up for initially.)

        Just say'n.

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

        • identicon
          Whoever, 23 Sep 2016 @ 7:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: Crashes

          As I said earlier (but used different words), this isn't a bug, it's a feature. The lack of audit capability is deliberate.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:46pm

      Re: Crashes

      Yeah, probably someone casting the result as a 32 bit integer...

      Being a database admin in the insurance industry, you gotta work with some huge numbers - you anticipate it in advance, and you test your solution's capabilities before deploying it.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re: Crashes

        They _could_ export the values to as many files as it takes, each with 1,049,575 numbers in it and sum them up in Excel.

        Excel specifications and limits:
        The Largest allowed positive number in Excel is 9.99999999999999E+307

        Worksheets are limited to 1,048,576 rows

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 6:44pm

      Re: Crashes

      I think it means they yank the power plug on it, thus causing it to crash at the most opportune time. "Whoops! See? That report just won't run. Happens every time!"

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

  • identicon
    Skeeter, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:51pm

    That troubling 'Constitution' again

    A question that most-any lawyer (you would think) would have considered (long before now), is that in the paradox of 'innocent until proven guilty', the issue of 'asset forfeiture' (truly, a hearty trampling of the 4th Amendment, anyhow) brings up the question, 'if you are deemed 'innocent' until found guilty, then why are your valuables, possessions, etc. confiscated anyhow? If this is being equated to 'locking up as secure during court proceedings', then instantly you have a situation where you are in-fact, truly being considered 'guilty until proven innocent', aren't you?

    It just keeps amazing me how we keep claiming we are a 'nation of laws', but every time I turn around, we are adamantly enforcing lies-as-laws, and then explaining our way out of our actions. Whether it is 'nepotism trumps fair and equal implementation (Hillary can divulge state secrets in e-mails, and the DOJ looks the other way; but if you mailed a 'classified' document to the feds, they'd nail you with everything they have and then refuse you an attorney to boot'), or whether it is 'innocent until proven guilty', then locking people up and forgetting why they were arrested for weeks, we keep proving if there's a way to be corrupt, we'll patent it and sell it to the masses as 'rule by law'.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 3:28pm

      Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

      brings up the question, 'if you are deemed 'innocent' until found guilty, then why are your valuables, possessions, etc. confiscated anyhow? If this is being equated to 'locking up as secure during court proceedings', then instantly you have a situation where you are in-fact, truly being considered 'guilty until proven innocent', aren't you?

      The insanely stupid and insane argument they use is that the person isn't being treated as guilty until proven innocent, and therefore having their rights violated, the property is, and property of course doesn't have rights to violate. Likewise just because the person hasn't been found guilty that doesn't mean the property isn't guilty, and property, unlike a person, can be assumed to be guilty until the former owner can demonstrate it's 'innocence'.

      It's a stupid law held up by even more brain-dead arguments, supported by spineless judges and lawmakers and those that stand to benefit from being able to grab everything not nailed down and/or on fire.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 6:48pm

      Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

      It just keeps amazing me how we keep claiming we are a 'nation of laws',

      Well, the government keeps claiming that. A lot of the people keep noticing that it isn't always so.

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

    • icon
      hmayle (profile), 24 Sep 2016 @ 5:28am

      Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

      A government (or nation) is only as corrupt as its' citizens allow it to be. Bottom line.
      Unfortunately citizens are more interested in who's on Dancing With Stars or playing Pokemon Go or who's the starting quarterback for the Cowboys this week than they are with their own government.
      It's a tyranny of the uninformed masses that unfortunately keeps the ball of corruption rolling.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 6:16am

        Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

        "A government (or nation) is only as corrupt as its' citizens allow it to be."

        What a lame and ignorant statement.

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

        • icon
          hmayle (profile), 24 Sep 2016 @ 6:41am

          Re: Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

          "If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens elect bad men to make and administer the laws."

          My statement comes from the above quote from Noah Webster, who is often referred to as the "Father of American Scholarship and Education" - Or just another lame and ignorant dude in your opinion I guess.

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

        • icon
          Groaker (profile), 24 Sep 2016 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

          You think that quote is lame? It has been said by many in slightly different words. So many that it is worth exploring. The following is another good instance.

          "Every country has the government it deserves."

          Who sits in the jury box? Who votes innocent for obvious criminals and murderers because they wear a badge? Who votes like sheep because their family always voted that way, or simply the reverse in angry defiance at their family? Who provided the political support for Bush43 when it was obvious from long before that war started that the criminal war was based on lies? And who continues to support these wars based on the lies of Obama? How many continue to believe that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq? Who bothers to read and find out what is happening? Who supports the continuing torture of POWs? Who bothers to educate themselves on the basis for so many of the despotic actions of this government? Who finds excuses for murder, rape and theft by the police when there is video evidence of same? Who called for the impeachment of the judge who ruled that it was perfectly permissible for LEOs to hack into any person's computer, because hacking was commonplace? How many even bother to sign a petition? And so much more.

          Such people make up the constituency of the government that we unfortunately have and deserve. Our government and our population demonstrate that the #mayle quote is indeed correct, and not at all "lame."

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 11:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

            Yeah. And all the corruption in government and industry is the fault of those least able to do anything about it, while those who are able to do something about it try to hide and avoid accountability, bribe others to cover it up, purchase laws which give them immunity.

            Oh wait, you're referring to the election system and how the little people have total control over who is in office ... hahahahahahahahahaha, tell me another joke.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2016 @ 7:27am

        Re: Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

        A government (or nation) is only as corrupt as its' citizens allow it to be. Bottom line.

        Ah, so you admit it's *your* fault, eh? Where can we find you?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2016 @ 6:22am

      Re: That troubling 'Constitution' again

      then why are your valuables, possessions, etc. confiscated anyhow?

      I believe the term you are looking for is 'evidence'. Obviously it shouldn't be kept by the police if the accused is found not guilty or not even charged.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 2:57pm

    anybody know whether that system is available in the family-budget model? i could really benefit from it.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 3:05pm

    Seize it like you can't track it.

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

  • identicon
    Whoever, 23 Sep 2016 @ 3:18pm

    Conversion?

    How many of those untrackable cars are now being used for private transportation by the police?

    How much of that money is actually missing?

    It's not so much that they "can't" track the property: the reality is that they don't want to track it.

    This is accountability 101. It's obvious what is going on.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 3:33pm

    Let's apply that argument elsewhere, shall we?

    "Terribly sorry mister IRS man, but the system I use to keep track of profits and expenses for my small business is incapable of actually doing either. No worries though, I promise that I've followed every applicable law, so there's no need to assume the worst or punish me for anything, I mean it's not like I knew in advance that the system wouldn't work, or could have easily upgraded it and decided not to because it benefits me to have it broken or anything."

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

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 23 Sep 2016 @ 4:07pm

    It is difficult to accept, but the fact is that we live in a police state. There will be no change until enough people shed their denial.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2016 @ 8:48pm

    Let's try another scenario

    "RIAA/MarkMonitor says software built to track pirates can't actually do the one thing it's supposed to do"

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

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 24 Sep 2016 @ 3:52am

    I thought it's purpose was to retroactively justify them constantly breaking laws and abusing citizens rights.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 8:30am

    Re: 69M > 11.6K

    Another post brought up that the 4th amendment. But I think the figures are themselves evidence that the 6th is being violated.

    It is more than plausibly convenient for the state, that nobody is showing up in court to defend themselves. Whereas defendants choose not to defend their rights to property, there is cause, and that cause should be investigated.

    Sandbagging the accused is illegal under the 6th amendment.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 1:13pm

    This is because 'forfeited' money goes directly into NYPD Officers private bank accounts.

    The sooner this murderous gang of thieves claiming to be a police department is shut down and investigated for the dozens of murders, the theft of public property (1/5 of all NYPD officers have been accused of burglary whilst on duty), shooting random black people for fun (They even have a game similiar to billiards where one officer beats and/or shoots someone in white, then red or black etc).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 1:31pm

    Not even a computer can count all the cash we seize.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2016 @ 4:23pm

    I'm sure the mob would also be hesitant to provide a list of its customers it pilfered from.

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

  • icon
    Bill Poser (profile), 25 Sep 2016 @ 7:35pm

    nypd seizure database

    If the problem is that the system doesn't support complex queries, they can simply release the entire data set in some standard form and let other people load it into their more capable query systems. It is hard to imagine that they don't have such an export capability, and as far as I can see there is nothing confidential about such data, so they would need to do little or no redaction.

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

  • icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 26 Sep 2016 @ 10:39am

    Oh, come on. Get real. Where would they find the money to keep their system running and up to date?

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.