Cops Trolled Driver's License Database for Pic of Hot Colleague

Originally posted by UFO1414
She looked better before with some weight on her and less orange.

Before

After

No, she didn't.

reply to post by clearmind


cops stalking attractive women wouldnt surprise me.

...and minneapolis is pretty big...think about a smaller town...where it wouldn't be unusual to see a cop car in your 'hood...only, it just happens to be the same officer..sorta like high school when you would bike by thier house hopeing....oh ,...sorry, a little TMI

Yes, I am pretty sure the officers have their very own facebook kind of thing going. I wouldn't be surprised in this day and age.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Agreed.

Not to say she's not attractive. But certainly not THAT attractive.

reply to post by schuyler

Rasmusson’s complaint, to be filed in federal court in Minnesota in a few weeks, alleges that the officers violated, among other things, the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, which Congress passed in 1994 after actress Rebecca Schaeffer was killed by a stalker who obtained her home address through her driver’s license record.

Do not feed the obvious troll.


What is also worrying in the article is the following, I don't know if anyone else spotted it but;

Rasmusson, who is planning to file a lawsuit, maintains that the activity is symptomatic of a larger problem involving data abuses by police and fears retribution from officers for bringing the problem to light.

So the problem is infinitely bigger and there are police officers who practice vendetta's. Where are the cops on this board now to defend their badge?

There is a certain ego wiring that attracts people to jobs and careers that involve power and control. Obviously not every cop, pastor, teacher, politician, bureaucrat, etc, is off the ego scale. But these roles do attract the outliers en masse.

Any system where rules are applied differently to those with a title or uniform and those not in the club is one where abuse on massive scale can and does occur.

How did YOUR bailout go this year? Did you get a check when you ran your business into the ground and took down your client's savings? Did you get off on that DWI stop where you showed your badge and your fraternal brothers guided you home safely? Did you have to take a drug test to be qualified to "serve" as Senator to your state? And you know you're not supposed to use that ____ (fill in your favorite 3-letter acronym) database strictly for work, but did you do a "favor" for yourself or for a friend because, well, you know, everybody does it? Ever pull over that hot chick in the red Jetta in the hopes you could use your cop mojo to maybe get a date? How's that jail cell after the ten people came forward saying you used your power to have sex with them as young boys? What? You're not IN jail? You've been transferred to a new parish?

I'm not saying the jobs don't demand a certain wiring to perform and be able to deal with all of society's dirty deeds. But the "don't let one cop ruin it for the rest" argument is a tiresome cop out.

It wasn't one officer looking up this woman's data and checking her out. It was top-down and sideways to the tune of hundreds across the country. It's systemic, it happens everywhere from the 2-cop shop up to LA & NYPD.

104 officers?

So much for the whole "secure restricted database" nonsense that's paraded around whenever somebody stops and asks "should you really be logging all this stuff?"

reply to post by brill


It's getting harder every day to find differences between LEO's and drunken frat boys on power trips.

She reminds me a little of Ms.Piggy..oh, wait..maybe that's why..

There quite obviously is more to this story. Like another poster said, she was either the butt of a joke, or something else...which I'm assuming is just as sexist. As for this limited to cops though, seriously? If anyone of you who said the cops abused their power in looking her up, but also had unrestricted access to the same information they did and are able to never ever look something up on someone else just because they can, then go ahead and throw the first stone.

It's absurd to think people are more than human. Men are more than men. Or women are more than women for that matter. Its human nature to want to know more about others. Does that make this right? No. Am I taking up for anyone here? No. I'm just stating fact.

And just for the record....if she looked herself up the same way just to check the views...so to speak....that too is just as illegal as the other however many hits her DL account had....

reply to post by brill



Dude, firstly, you could have warned us she was UGLY.

Secondly, everyone (including myself) that instantly clicked on the link to view her, that looked at the Photo and commented on this thread are just as bad as the police that did the same.
Fair enough that these officers were abusing their privledge's for using the data base for this.
But when it come's to it we were just as bad as them, because as soon as we read HOT colleague, ALL of us just had to have a look, Didn't WE????????
So what does that make US????

reply to post by WozaMeathed


Exactly. I'm guessing every single one of us....male and female....just had to click and look too. Like I said... let he who is without sin...cast the first internet hate mail.

reply to post by webpirate


Agree with both your posts mate, thats why i starred em both.
I , like you, think those that have posted against the police on this thread are just being hypocrites.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by brill

 

She doesn't know why so many people were looking at her picture ..... and neither do I.. it's not like she was exceptionally attractive?

Even on all fours she'd be ugly...
Attractive she is not...
probably they used her photo to keep the kids away from the fireplace....

I'm missing the reason for real outrage here? SO they trolled the DMV photo records to oogle pretty girls. So? Is there ANYONE here who can honestly sit and consider having open access to such a database and NOT eventually play a bit and look up people or things not strictly business related? Honestly now..... Old childhood friends... Old Childhood enemies... Ex-girlfriends from long ago.. ? Any of the above or many more. Anyone here? Just ONE who can honestly say they wouldn't peek out of personal curiosity?

I'm a little envious that they CAN do this. I'd love to have the same ability to Surf 'Semi' public records like DMV at my leisure. What harm came from this though? No one suggests her info was used and no one is saying they went trolling for much deeper stuff which could show something racy or interesting. Medical records, for instance.

So cops get curious and they play sometimes. I'd expect nothing less. Now, if they USE any of what they see in even a joking way or as a prank...let alone more..they ought to get the book thrown at them for it. Simply viewing though? It's their JOB.....and this is a minor detour for a few seconds to peek at a picture that was probably just the topic of viral Emails around law enforcement, given the numbers. Everyone had to see what all the fuss was about.

Originally posted by webpirate
reply to post by WozaMeathed

 

Exactly. I'm guessing every single one of us....male and female....just had to click and look too. Like I said... let he who is without sin...cast the first internet hate mail.

The difference would be that we didn't hack into a restricted database to do it.

Yes....when you illegally access an internet site...it is called hacking.....and is illegal no matter what the intention was or is.

I think there's some confusion on where this thread is going. Whether she is good looking or f'ugly is irrelevant. ATS rules state that original headlines must be used. The headline is not my choice. This is about abuse of power and wide-scale at that. It's about people who should know better yet time and time again take advantage of others. It's not the end of world by any stretch its just unsettling that we are more than likely just scratching the surface. I don't hate cops, there are good and bad, I just have very little respect for them. I realize these people have a job, have families and bills to pay like you and I. It just seems that the pattern of not abiding by the same rules and laws that the general public must seldom applies. Sure cops do get punished on occasion but obviously the message is not strong enough or a better deterrent needs to be put in place (firings, jail time, etc.).

brill

Oh for #s sake...I used to work for a huge financial service and we would look up celebrity files all the time. Were we told not too...yes but it was done anyways. I did not use any of the info to profit it was just pure looking at. Cops are doing it is no different then the other 5 million corps that have personal data.

Originally posted by cwg100
reply to post by brill

 

As in every profession, there are those in law enforcement that are badge-heavy, abusive, immature, and unprofessional. But it really is a small percentage. And databases are not routinely abused - there are internal controls that prevent this in most places. The national and state databases keep logs of every bit of information accessed and by whom. Certain categories of information can not be accessed without documentation of "need to know," and authorization to access those databases is very limited. Criminal histories, for example, are password protected and MUST be linked to a case number. Only a handful of people in a police department are given access to these files, and that handful does NOT include patrol officers, detectives, and most administrators. It is usually only communications personnel. The state BCI and FBI conduct annual audits, and each department has several TACs that conduct random routine audits and internal checks. Most police officers can't run anything but license plates, driver's license, and warrants checks, (and most are too lazy to learn how to run those, preferring to ask dispatchers to do it for them.) All other types of checks can ONLY be run by dispatchers, and their access and logs are tightly controlled and inspected continually. Anyone with a log on can have it terminated at any time and must recertify once or twice a year. At re-certification, their logs are inspected and anything amiss results in suspension of privileges, as well as civil and criminal penalties including jailtime. Loss of employment and decertification is automatic.

It's easier to catch abuse in smaller agencies, so big city departments undoubtedly have more abuse than smaller ones. However, this kind of thing would have been caught eventually, which is why it's a lot rarer than most on here would believe. It's just not worth your job to take a look at somebody's drivers' license picture. Anybody risking it would not only lose their job and go to jail but could never work in law enforcement again. I don't know what's wrong with those people in Minn. but in most places, this would have been caught right away.

And by the way, nobody hates this kind of thing more than police officers, because it gives them all a bad name.

Appreciate the detailed reply but obviously more needs to be done. If those checks are in place this should have been caught earlier. Considering that the problem is from the top down and there is a valid fear by some of retaliation this turns into who is watching the watchers.

brill