There are some very good points here made both for and against. I personally have worked in law enforcement, both as a volunteer and as a sworn deputy. I have experienced first hand about trusting certain individuals in law enforcement and not trusthing others. Community policing, reserves, what ever title you wish to give it, can be very valuable. It does bring the community closer with law enforcement. You get to see first hand what goes on and it causes one to appreciate the work of law enforcement people. If you volunteer you become a voice, eyes and ears for the rest of the community, as well as for law enforcement. I did computer work for a local police department before I became a swon deputy. I created a database for speed violators, drunk drivers, etc. It was a great help to the department and served the community very well, as the end result was less speeders, less chidren hit by cars and less drunk drivers on the road. This effort was combined with a community policing program made up of volunteers and police, who helped to monitor speeders and other problem areas in the community. This program did bring the people of the community and the people of law enforcement closer together. It opened up major communications gaps existed prior to this program. Also as a result my work on the database, I have been asked to come back and help work on computers recovered from criminal situations. I am no geek, I am just learning, and look to many resources to find answers to quetsions myself, but I have learned that the volunteer programs are a vital part to helping keep our freedoms intact. I have seen things that have gone on within some agencies that needed reporting, and I did, so in this situation I was the eyes and ears for the community, as well as the police department, because it prevented a bad situation from getting worse. If you volunteer, and if you see or hear something you do not like, there are channels to go through to address the issue and get it taken care of. This may not be easy, but if you have pride and care about your community, then you just do it. So there are some very good advantages to volunteering. It can help everyone involved. If you sit back and do nothing it helps no one. You people with the advanced computer skills are very much needed to work along side law enforcement, to connect the bridge of communication so that both law enforcement and the community can be stronger together. It takes positive attitudes to make this type of program work. This trust gap can only be broken if the communication gap is broken, and that is not done with sarcism, throwing stones and such, it is done by honest, open communication, tossing ideas on the table, discussing them and finding solutions to make the plans work. So all of you with the beginning, intermediate and advanced skills, be proud of your knowledge, share it with others and help close the gap of mistrust and lack of communication between law enforcement, the computer industry and the community in general, that way everyone can benefit. Please don't knock it if you have not tried it. Now I will get off my soap box... Heidi Henry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan" <alan@private> To: <plug@private>; "Zot O'Connor" <zot@private>; <plug@private> Cc: "CRIME List" <crime@private> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:47 PM Subject: CRIME Re: [PLUG] C.R.I.M.E. Meeting - HPD rollout of Reserve Specialist Program - Tues, 12 March 2002 @ Verizon Airtouch @ 10AM > I can understand both sides in this debate. > > What it comes down to is trust. > > Law Enforcement is not trusted by a percentage of the population. (Some of > them for very good reasons.) > > For a long time Law Enforcement on the Federal level has been doing their > best to hinder the securing of networks. They have pushed for laws that > require back doors in software (overtly or covertly). They have pushed for > making cryptography research as difficult as possible. They have pushed (and > gotten) laws that allow bulk tapping of networks and instalation of tapping > equiptment into public networks. > > Secure networks mean secure from *any* attacker, not just "everyone but > someone authorized by the State". > > And then there is the habit of some prosecutors to charge security people > with crimes after they are no longer useful to an investigation. (Or try and > convict them when they refuse to assist in an investigation.) George refers > to these prosecutors as being "on the promotion track". > > Because of these, and a number of other issues, Law Enforcement has a bad rep > with a number of people in and out of the security community. Probably > justified in many cases. (I have learned to trust specific individuals in > Law Enforcement and not trust others. I judge on a case-by-case basis.) > > Does this mean that this is something to avoid? > > No. > > If people with clues stay away from opertunities like this, then we will be > left with the clueless, the scam artists, and the corrupt involved with > helping law enforcement deciding what is good and what is not. It is also > not fair to leave those who are actually trusting of authority to be left > defenceless against those people who join such organizations for less than > pure reasons. > > A good reason why you want to have some sort of input into something like > this... Imagine a group such as this populated by characters out of Dilbert. > That is what we can expect if there is not participation from the > knowlegable members of the security community. Otherwise we can expect > people who join for presitge, without having anything useful to contribute. > > People complain that there is not enough citizen control and/or involvement > in Law Enforcement. Here is an attempt at just that. Don't pass it up > because it is not coming from or controlled by people sharing your exact > ideology. Such groups don't exist. > > And if things turn out for the worst, you will know what individuals are > responsible and can raise hell. > > > On Thursday 07 March 2002 10:48, Zot O'Connor wrote: > > [Cross posted to the crime mail list] > > > > Ken, > > > > While I might agree with some of your points below I can confidently say > > you are full of feces. > > > > Why? > > > > Because I have worked with Government Agencies. I was asked about this > > program, and I whole heartily support it. > > > > Why do I support it? > > > > Simple, there is a misconception, that Ken propagates, that police are > > "them" and we different. The best policing is done by the community. > > You want to secure your neighborhood? Get a centralized bureaucracy to > > do it? Or is is better to get all the neighbors together and make > > everyone part of the process? One of the ways to create abuses of > > power, is to centralize that power. > > > > This program is slightly different still. There is a need at all police > > organizations for techincal skills. The choices to solve this need are > > "Hire Techincal people" or "Give skills to police officers." > > > > The first is tricky. Police agencies are unlikely to hire expensive > > people due to budgets. The cost of an effective techincal person, > > versus the effectiveness for all the police work does not make good > > economical sense. > > > > The second is iffy too. No offense to police officers, but getting any > > person with 4-6 years training, and 5 - 15 years experience to take on a > > whole knew area of expertise is asking alot. > > > > What works better is a version of the first. In many areas (e.g. > > chemical engineering) officers are not expected to have expertise. They > > ask the experts the questions and attempt to convert the meaning to a > > legal world. In the case of "computers" the issue comes up often, soon > > I expect 70% of all cases, but the level of expertise needed to make a > > decision is high. > > > > I personally have assisted officers on several cases. Sometimes is is > > asking a fairly easy question (how does email work), sometimes is much > > trickier (how can we track a death threat). Most of the time the issues > > are easy for me, and difficult for the officer. > > > > This program came about from an idea of George Heuston, formerly with > > the FBI, now with the Hillsboro Police Department. George pitched the > > idea of having "volunteer techincal reserve officers" who get the Law > > Enforcement training in forensics (from established teaching institutes) > > and then commit to a certain number of hours of community service to the > > police department. > > > > I loved it. Take your average officer and put him in the class. If he > > gets 30% out, we are lucky. Put a geek in the class and they will > > probably get closer to 80-90% (they probably know 60%). The geek can > > then use that knowledge in tandem with the officer to produce a more > > efficient investigative team. And BTW train the officer over time. > > > > George then pitched it to Chief Louie (Hillsboro Police Chief). He > > loved it. I have met with the Chief and he is a surprising character. > > He really believes in community based policing (vs policing of the > > communities). While he and Ken are likely to have differences on many > > issues, I think Ken would find more areas of agreement then he would > > comfortably admit to. > > > > And the is the purpose of the CRIME group. If you think this idea > > sucks, come and voice your opinion. Now is the time to get your words > > in. Chief Louie has offered to take this on. Obviously George and I > > are invested emotionally in this as well. > > > > The meetings are open, and fun. > > > > Ken raises some good issues. I hope to see and hear him there. > > > > On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 09:13, Ken Nowack wrote: > > > That's nice and innocent sounding and all. But why > > > don't they just hire techs to do it? Why do they need > > > us? Budget reasons can't simply be the answer. And > > > further, once something gets started, it *will* get > > > expanded over time. Hence my previous comments. It > > > doesn't bother me that some people on this list > > > support this measure or that some people don't share > > > my opinion. However, I for one, am against *any* > > > partnerships with police departments, goverment > > > enforcement agencies, etc no matter how innocent they > > > sound. Exactly what computers would peole involved in > > > this program be working on? If previous experience and > > > history are any example then these computers will be > > > from 1. targeted groups/individuals that the public > > > and police beleive are a threat 2. groups/individuals > > > that are caught committing a crime 3. > > > groups/individuals that are being targetted due to > > > their political activity who haven't committed any > > > crime 4. groups/individuals that the law enforcement > > > agency wants to target for their own reasons. > > > > > > This is all par for the course post-9.11 > > > > > > Whats that old quote again...."People who sacrifice > > > freedom for security deserve neither" or something > > > like that. I'm sure the same proposals and programs > > > that were put in effect during McCarthyism sounded > > > just as innocent, but just look where we ended up. > > > Thousands upon thousands of people incarcerated or > > > deported for political ideas and ethnicity. Ain't > > > america great? > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > --- Michael Rasmussen <rasmussenm@private> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > From: Ken Nowack [mailto:drake_stuff@private] > > > > > > > > > > YAY! > > > > > > > > > > This is all we need. </sarcasm off> The last time > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > had special departments/partnerships like this was > > > > > during McCarthyism. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, there were probably others. And they > > > > > > > > wonder > > > > > > > > > why people like me have the nerve to talk about > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > erosion of civil rights. > > > > > > > > Um, Ken. Did you happen to find out what the > > > > reserve specialist program > > > > does? > > > > > > > > It is geeks who (for instance) help the police > > > > analyze impounded systems and > > > > get the data off into some format the police can > > > > understand. Something like > > > > expert witnesses so police can do police work rather > > > > than geek work. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Michael Rasmussen - Network Engineer, Columbia > > > > Management > > > > voice: 971-925-6723 cell: 503-807-1447 > > > > rasmussenm@private > > > > <mailto:rasmussenm@private> > > > > http://www.columbiafunds.com > > > > > > > > NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential > > > > or other privileged information. If you are not the > > > > intended recipient, or believe that you have > > > > received this communication in error, please do not > > > > print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise > > > > use the information. Also, please indicate to the > > > > sender that you have received this email in error, > > > > and delete the copy you received. Any communication > > > > that does not relate to official Columbia business > > > > is that of the sender and is neither given nor > > > > endorsed by Columbia. Thank you. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >----- > > > > > > > Support PLUG and the Open Source Community > > > > http://www.linuxfund.org/lugs/?lug=plug > > > > To unsubscribe from the PLUG list visit > > > > > > http://www.pdxlinux.org/mailing_list/ > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! > > > http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >----- Support PLUG and the Open Source Community > > > http://www.linuxfund.org/lugs/?lug=plug To unsubscribe from the PLUG list > > > visit http://www.pdxlinux.org/mailing_list/ > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun May 26 2002 - 11:39:14 PDT